Archives for category: Wirkman Netizen
This post first appeared on Wirkman Netizen, September 16, 2008:

The cure for statism is not more statism. And yet that seems to be the general approach of mainstream government policy.

What drives current government economic policy? Fear. Fear that letting a big institution fail would spiral everything out of control, leading, ineluctably, to chaos.

The problem with this fear-based policy is that it seems to so insulate the market-directed institutions from their normal feedback loops that such policy actually exacerbates the situation, only in a longer cycle. To prevent a near-term disaster, government bolsters up a particular company. Then, perceiving that responsibility has been undermined in the feedback system, market actors behave less responsibly, leading, down the road, to a bigger crisis than would otherwise have occurred.

I am thinking about the automobile industry and the mortgage industry, right now. Other industries provide evidence for this general perspective.

But always you have politicians intervening in the feedback systems, weakening those systems and making matters, in the long run, worse. The Rx in each case seems like only a slightly bigger dose than has gone on before, but its repercussions spread wider with each administration of the “cure.” The system becomes parasitic itself, dependent upon such cures being given at increasing doses and with increasing frequency.

It is not wise medicine. It is fear-based medicine. If people could just get over the fact that companies die just as individuals do, we would not have such nonsense. Indeed, the ruling fear of the day is fear of business death. The funny thing about this fear is that it is so amazingly inegalitarian. Some companies (big companies) are more important than others. Tens of thousands of small businesses die per year. But have one large company go, and politicians of both parties vie to save it, prop it up.

The belief that some companies are more important than others is a classic “pro-business” economic policy model. It is similar to the belief that some taxpayers are more important than others. (Democrats appear to appear to believe the broad wash of consumers are most important for “the economy”; Republicans believe that richer consumers, who invest, are more important.) What is interesting about the theory of company size importance is how bipartisan this theory is.

You can see the reasons for believing the theory. A big company goes down, and a whole bunch of people become unemployed. But you raise the minimum wage, and unemployment goes “unexpectedly” up. You raise taxes on businesses, and unemployment goes up. You increase regulation, and unemployment can go up, too. In all these other cases, though, the employers and employments are more widespread than when one single large business goes down. So, it is a matter of parallax. If you only notice the one kind of bad effect, but not the more common and widespread others, you consistently skew the system.

This sort of policy also increases the advantages that big companies have over small ones. In a freer market, smaller companies often outcompete big companies. But when you start subsidizing big companies when they fail, you basically foster a plutocratic system, since it is often the case that it is the big, wealthier companies who can afford to rent politicians at a rate that crowds out the input of smaller companies. You end up (not surprisingly) with higher concentrations of wealth.

This is rather like what Karl Marx predicted, only not free-market insolvencies in the business cycle spurring the wealth gap, but government doing so.

It is, of course, great for those people who ensconce themselves within the ranks of the big companies. Thus it is and was that Ivy Leaguers and the like keep their positions in society. The Old Boys keep their network, and keep their nodes operating, while, in the freer part of the market, the unsubsidized part, nodes pop in and out of prominence daily.

The policy of preferring big companies over small ones — of giving special treatment to the large in effect at the expense of the small — is an ancient way of conducting the state. It is not new. It is not sophisticated. It is based on systematic illusion and it is at one with how ancient empires were run, how mercantilist kingdoms were run.

It was common practice when leechcraft and bloodletting were all the rage.

It is laissez-faire that is new and sophisticated.

It is time for the advocates of laissez-faire to chuckle and rib the simpletons and their vain policies of favoritism. There is no reason for advocates of dirigisme  to get away with any sort of intellectual high ground, or any cultural pre-eminence. They should be ridiculed in a similar manner that they have ridiculed laissez-faire, for over a century. And for every jibe, offer a bit of reason to show why the high ground is where it is, in freedom’s quarter.

Statecraft is leechcraft not merely for its game of draining the blood of the market order. Statecraft is leechcraft in that it is based on out-moded notions of what makes society healthy. Freedom makes it healthy. Statism cripples it, the better to feed the insatiable demands of partisans of the state.


Orang malu

N.B. A few alterations of the above post have been made in this re-posting, to fix typos and remove some infelicities of style. No new thoughts have been introduced.

This is just another hastily-made rehash of my basic views of government and society, something I still do on a fairly regular basis; I repost it here mostly because I like the title. And that one of the themes, of long-cycle instability, just does not get enough play in policy discussion. (Though now that Western civilization approaches crisis, this sort of thing is increasing, no?)

The Ron Paul newsletters, in the news — again!

The following appeared on Wirkman Netizen, on October 1, 2008:

I have argued that the controversial “Ron Paul” newsletters amounted to Paleolibertarianism Beta (see links below to previous posts). But it is worth remembering that when Paleolibertarianism was first trotted out in the pages of the January 1990 issue of Liberty magazine, Ron Paul was asked for a comment. And he responded:

I hestitate to comment on Rockwell’s article because I see the debate as being more divisive than productive. I prefer to use my energy attacking those who support statism, whether they do so intentionally or out of ignorance.

Having said this, I will make one comment: it’s obvious to me that the Libertarian Party would be a lot bigger than it is now if its image were perceived as more libertarian and less libertine.

That is from the March 1990 issue of Liberty, page 50, Volume 3, Number 4.

My trouble with paleolibertarianism was on the Libertine Issue, in part. I agreed with paleos that some vices regarded as “libertine” by normal folk are indeed vices. But I saw no point in belaboring the point in the paleo manner: THE PEOPLE WE DEFEND ARE SCUM AND WE KNOW IT. I usually preferrred a gentler approach. “Scum” — and the many nasty words in the old Ron Paul newsletters — just went overboard.

My favorite form of acknowledging the vice/toleration problem was to revise Voltaire’s defense of free speech to a defense of psychoactive drug use: “I may disapprove of what you take, but I’ll defend to your death your right to take it.”

That, I thought, gets the distinction made just right.

Further, I do believe that practicing the virtues generally does reward the virtuous. And vice does punish the vice-ridden. So, in a free society with individual responsibility, people who choose to smoke die younger, and at their expense; people who screw around without protection get STDs and are more apt than chaster folks to have their pudenda itch, bleed, chafe, and rot off; people who sky dive are more apt to find themselves a pancake on a rocky plain. Few people want to die young, lose their genitalia, or lose skeletal and organ integrity, so they have plenty incentive to reform — and, in a free society, no ready-at-hand excuse to blame their vices on others. So, by insisting on individual responsibility, one encourages virtue without hectoring. And accepts vice without hysteria. (Folly will always be with us.)

Paleolibertarianism always seemed like an excuse to hector. And some (not all) used it as an excuse to berate. And most of that just seemed indecent to me.

Ron Paul was right to say that the Paleo debate was divisive. The perception of libertinism? It only occasionally bothered me, in part because I grew up a Christian, and I believed that all are sinners, that all have foibles. The attack on libertinism by the paleos struck me as self-righteous garbage, just more Pharisaic posturing by conservative types, the kind of people I just could not trust, the kind of people who couldn’t see a rafter in their own eyes, but pick at the splinters in others.

The nasty element in Paleoism was especially divisive. And yet it occurred in Ron Paul’s own newsletters, under his name. That seems puzzling to me, to this day.

Hat tip to Jesse Walker for reminding me of Ron Paul’s “No Comment” comment.

The Ron Paul newsletters, in the news — again!


The following appeared on Wirkman Netizen, on September 1, 2008:

Virginia Postrel defends herself against a remonstrance, against the charge that she should have warned others about Ron Paul. And she shifts the blame:

I do fault my friends at Reason, who are much cooler than I’ll ever be and who, scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn’t do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked my old boss Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul’s newsletters back in the early ’90s

Yeah, yeah. It turns out that the Reason staff is now all too young to have read the early newsletters. Jesse Walker, who did read voraciously in Bill Bradford’s huge stack of back-issues, probably did not bother with the Ron Paul files for one simple reason: He did not expect to learn anything. Ron Paul is not a great teacher. He is not an original thinker. He is not even (when writing himself) that fun a writer. So Jesse had little reason to go spelunking into Liberty magazine’s dustiest shelves and boxes. I, who filed them there, certainly did not want to look at them a second time. On any given afternoon at Liberty, I would have preferred to keep my lunch.

Frankly, I had forgotten about most of this old “Ron Paul” bigotry. I mean, one reason for my tepid-at-first enthusiasm for the recent Paul outing was, after all, his old connection with Murray Rothbard, whose influence on the libertarian movement I regarded as poison. And Lew Rockwell, whose influence on Murray Rothbard I regarded as poison in double dose. (I did not support Ron Paul in 1987, for the Libertarian Party nomination. When Rothbard heard this, he hated me for it, and scowled in my direction the only time we could have met. What a sour old grump, I thought.)

There was an added wrinkle, though: over the years I had warmed to Lew Rockwell, following his break with Liberty and (more importantly) my break with Liberty. He had distanced himself, somewhat, from the Paleo Turn, and was talking straight libertarianism more. He had seen the old paleocon forces get sucked back into neocon war, like piglets to their porcine mother’s teats. And though he still exhibited his nasty streak, I didn’t see it as often or as vile as I had in the old days. He had mellowed, I thought.

Besides, the Mises Institute, which he runs, does some good work. Any place that puts out Menger’s Grundsätze will get a slight nod from me.

And besides, some of Bill Bradford’s reactions to Rockwell were themselves petty and stupid. So I cut Rockwell some slack. Maybe I had made too much of my distaste for paleoism.

But then, reading the PDFs supplied by TNR, the whole thing came back to me, in full whiff.

Really, one wants to just get away from all that. And so, over time, most of us old-timers tried to forget the ugly period of Paleolibertianism Beta.

Besides, no one asks me or pays me to write about this stuff.

So I have Virginia Postrel’s excuse.

But what of her other excuses? “Rightly or wrongly, I didn’t consider Paul one of the biggest mainstream representatives of libertarian thought.” Well, that’s easy. He isn’t. He never was. Except in politics.He is libertarianism’s almost sole political representative, certainly sole member of Congress.

This passage puzzles me: “Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul’s populist appeals. . . . I suspect they did but decided it was more useful to spin things their way than to take Paul’s record and ideas seriously.” Did they really spin anything? Not really. They recognized Paul’s odd populist-conservative takes. It obviously made many of the Reason folk queasy. They just didn’t think the queasiness went very deep.

And it does go deep. Right down into the vile maw of Paleolibertarianism, the strange stance of anti-statist class warfare and out-group hate.

By the way, Ron Paul’s popularity is the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. That is Ron Paul’s appeal. Reason didn’t need to spin this. That’s just good reporting. Ron talks liberty up as a principle that unites anti-war and no-special-favors government. Fiscal responsibility. Individual responsibility. Listening to Paul today, that’s what he preaches, and the fact that people grok that is a story, and it’s good for libertarianism.

It’s just too bad about that Paleolibertarian period, and Ron Paul’s enduring connections to people who still, to this day, probably don’t want to deal with their old rhetoric in public.

I could have told anyone who asked the dangers. But no one asked. And if I spent over $50 on a brown recluse spider to benefit Ron Paul, maybe that makes me part of the problem, not the solution.

So blame me. Don’t blame Virginia. Don’t blame Reason. Blame all us old guys who heard the gossip about the Rockwell-Rothbard alliance. Blame the late Bill Bradford, who heard all this first hand.

Or not. Realize that we opposed this nonsense at the time. At least I did, as much as I could in print.

And as for Virginia Postrel, well, I really liked the last book of hers I read. Her support for the Iraq war, on the other hand, strikes me as so gullible that . . . well, what are the consequences?

Maybe people need to grow up a bit.

Politicians will always betray you somehow. I mean, I grew up on Thomas Jefferson, but realized early on that, on the slavery issue, this man was as compromised as one could be. Ron Paul comes out looking like a saint compared to Tom. But then, Tom had more excuses. His whole life was based on slavery, his stance as a rich guy able to do science and philosophy and music and all the civilized rest. It rested on slaves. What excuse do modern-day paleos have, to dredge up the old bigotries about color and culture and skin and the rest?

It is an odd thing, trying to be a civilized person in the libertarian movement — or in modern society. You have to keep some independence of mind. You cannot allow yourself to become part of any cult. For all the leaders will betray you. All the prophets will prove false. All the gems will prove brummagem.

What lives on is an ideal, freedom, and our present-day paths that all seem to lead away from it. Even the ones that at first seem to lead toit.


The Ron Paul newsletters, in the news — again!

The following appeared on Wirkman Netizen, on January 10, 2009:

On Wolf Blitzer’s program, Ron Paul responds (link to Reason’s Hit and Run).

I haven’t watched it all yet, because it’s hard for me to stomach evasion. While I suppose it’s reasonable for people to suppose Ron’s a racist because of the horrid newsletters that went out under his name, that was never my charge. My question has been more like this: Why did you let yourself be used by racist hatemongers, and why did you let them use racist and homophobic hatred to sell your point of view?

Interestingly, the word “libertarianism” is out in front here, and Ron nicely (if improbably) says that libertarians cannot be racist. Of course they can. The libertarians who wrote his newsletters were racist.

Of course, he could say “they weren’t libertarian,” but he also denies knowing who any of them are. Improbable. He mentions the word “editor” but does not mention who the real editor of his newsletter was. And that is something he could have done, easily.

Let me repeat: I have never really believed that he was a racist. I believe he was led by his friends and mentors (Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard) into this sort of race-baiting as a quasi-legitimate way to “use” rightwingers to forward “legit” libertarian ends, courtesy of a sweet business deal (with Burt Blumert).

Or I suppose something like this could have happened:

Ron, 1989: Hey Burt, what’s all this racist crap in my newsletter?

Burt: Sorry, Ron. I had to fire a ghostwriter. It seemed OK when I first read it, but I saw that it was pretty nasty on second thought. Taken care of.

Ron: OK.

Ron, 1990: Hey Burt, what’s all this nastiness about my hero MLK about?

Burt: You like MLK? Sorry. We have evidence here in our folders that he was a commie and a pervert. I mean, I got this straight from J. Edgar Hoover and he never lied.

Ron: Burt, you should know never to trust the FBI!

Burt: Sorry, won’t happen again.

Ron, 1995: Burt, there’s more MLK bashing and nastiness and racism! What’s going on here?

Burt: Yeah, I had to fire another sub-editor. Sorry. But, on the bright side, we suckered another several thou off of the creeps on the far right!

Seems unlikely, no? Could Ron be that dumb?

Well, I just finished watching the video. Paul does what politicians do: try to change the subject. Like I said, I never really believed he was a racist. But he did go along with racists at his newsletter, and let racism go out under his name. This looks so bad, and stinks so high. In a sense, it’s worse than racism. It’s not caring about an issue enough to stick up for your own principles, and letting your friends get away with putting your name through the dreck of bigotry.

Now, we have all said terrible things. At least I have. I have even written pretty awful things. For a joke, sometimes I will say nearly anything. And that, no doubt, is how the ghosts of Paul justified at least some of what they were doing.

And, as I have insisted before, this is part of the paleolibertarian agenda: appeal to conservatives by dissing the underclass.

The paleos just didn’t understand how ugly they were being. I think they thought of themselves as being principled. I bet they argued their case for the vile speech to Ron Paul in terms of principle. And I bet Paul, blown over by the imprimatur of his favorite living economist, went along for those reasons.

It’s just a theory. But it’s the best one I can advance. It offers yet another pathetic example of someone going too far in the “school” he belongs to.

How much better would it have been for Ron Paul had he distanced himself a bit from the “Austrians.” He should have read more Coase and Posner and Friedman, and kept a more open mind. And avoided deifying Mises and treating Rothbard as Mises’ One True Prophet.

The whole cultic aspect of Mises worship comes up again, and in such a way that would surely have annoyed the great man himself.

Mises was not God. Rothbard was no Muhammad. These are fallible men with some good ideas. I admire Mises more than I admire most 20th century thinkers. But that does not mean that I would be so blown over by his brightest disciples that I would let them spew hate in my name.

And, frankly, I am not all that impressive a person. Ron Paul, running for president, should have more integrity than I. He does not. That is sad. So, just as i think a person has to be in several senses better a person than I — morally, financially, intellectually — to be worth placing in the presidency of the United States, just so I can say Ron does not really deserve it.

Of course, I don’t have much evidence that any of his competitors for the position are any better. In fact, I think most are worse. I think that some political positions simply disqualify you. Warmongering without good cause, and going along with lies to support the case for war, that disqualifies most of the major candidates, leaving only Obama (perhaps) worth putting in office.

And he has a lot of other things going against him.

But, at least he probably has kept his anti-black racism under control, and not spewed racial hatred under his name for a decade or more.


Hi, I was really upset when more of these newsletters came out, since I’ve been a RP supporter for a while now (about a year). He really really really needs to understand how bad these are and come clean. Here is my take on the subject:

I liked your take on Hit&Run on what he should have said (that’s how I wound up on your blog):

“Look, I had to deal with this painful experience 12 years ago. I prayed about what to do. I stopped talking to the main person responsible, Mr. X. And those who convinced me to allow this? One is dead, and I forgave him, though never quite trusted him again. I’m afraid I still have regular dealings — though not business dealings — with the one other person who convinced me that this was the right way to go, who defended the highjacking of my newsletters. This is the most awful thing I ever did, giving up my name for others to abuse to promote ideas I believed in to people who were racists, using racist language. I repudiated this a long time ago. I made what amends I could a long time ago. My constituents forgave me. It is sad that it was brought up at this time.”

And cited it in my post, if that’s cool.

One word about how I feel about all this: crushed.

The Ron Paul newsletters, in the news — again!

The following appeared on Wirkman Netizen, on September 1, 2008:

The now-infamous Ron Paul newsletters surprised a lot of people I didn’t think would be surprised. I knew (or at least “had heard” and accepted as likely) that Ron Paul had close relations with Burt BlumertLew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard from the early ’80s, and I knew what Rockwell and Rothbard believed regarding strategy. They believed in hate. Rothbard famously believed that you had to stir up hate against the state. He came to believe that you should stir up hatred against the underclass. That’s how you had to appeal to the middle-class Christians would turn on the old conservatism.

Rockwell wrote his polemic on Paleolibertarianism in Liberty magazine in 1990. I was appalled by his manifesto, and wrote a polemic in response, entitled “The Libertarian as Authoritarian.” It is the obvious product of youth, though there is little I disagree with in it to this day.

This is all relevant because it was apparent then that the authors of Ron Paul’s newsletters were really the Paleo crowd (which ones exactly, I do not know for sure, though I have a lot of remembered gossip echoing in the dark areas of my brain), and that the Ron Paul newsletters amounted to Paleolibertarianism Beta. (Of course, the fact that I was told that these were the authors of the newsletters in question helped make them seem “apparent,” eh? Bill Bradford, who at several points was trying to get me to ghost his gold newsletter — the most I ever did was edit it — told me that So-and-So made good money ghosting for Blumert’s forays, which memory tells me was referenced especially to the Ron Paul efforts.)

Paleolibertarianism 1.0 was a last gasp effort to try class hatred after the miserable showing of Ron Paul’s 1988 presidential effort.

I believe that Rothbard and Rockwell were very, very wrong in pushing this agenda. They had historical excuses, sure. But they placed too much emphasis on their experience with Taft Republicanism, a movement that long ago died, and probably cannot be revived. And they thought, incredibly, that heaping abuse onto black welfare-and-drug addicts and hippie weirdos would somehow translate into state hatred. Fat chance.

I think Rockwell has repented to some degree. Surely and the Mises Institute have done some good work, especially bringing old books back into print.

The best thing that this brouhaha about the racism in the Ron Paul newsletters can do is apply the final nail to the coffin of paleolibertarianism. Hatred does not work in promoting liberty. At least, hatred towards certain groups (blacks, hippies, Jews) will not get you far.

Not towards liberty, mind you. Great stuff for a pogrom. But not a program for individual freedom and general civility.

UPDATE: I have not previously linked to the Kirkchick article, “Angry White Man,” and should have. A response, “The Kirchicking of Ron Paul,” on Gays and Lesbians for Ron Paul website, is interesting, if not exactly convincing. This argument is worth thinking about, another “Two Libertarianisms” analysis:

For some at Cato (though certainly not all) and perhaps for Kirchick, libertarianism is simply about maximizing personal autonomy for the individual on any and every issue. This “libertarianism of autonomy” (if you will) holds a natural and powerful appeal for those who, like gays and lesbians, have been victimized (however recently) by the state and by private actors. Thus, someone like Kirchick might genuinely believe that Giuliani would be a “libertarian” president because of his record as mayor on “gay issues” like marriage or adoption. (Never mind his recent pandering to social traditionalists.) It also becomes easy to marry such a focus on social policy issues with a foreign policy that attempts to promote personal autonomy by invading countries like Iraq and “teaching them to elect good men,” as President Wilson put it. One can even see how those who question heavy U.S. subsidies for Israel–a bastion of personal autonomy surrounded by people who probably don’t like the Jews, gays, blacks or the Baltic states–could only seem like anti-semites “speaking in code.”

The libertarianism of Ron Paul and the Mises Institute is different. While Ron has always been outspoken in defense of personal autonomy (see, for example, this terrific 1988 clip of him defending drug legalization), he is as concerned about the liberties of the individual as he is about the institutional structure that protects liberty. When he describes himself as a “constitutionalist,” he is not “speaking in code” to express some kind of bigotry, but to defend the liberalism for which the American Revolution was fought: the restraint and diffusion of power through constitutionally limited government.

Yes, yes. But when we read newsletters filled with racially insensitive remarks, impolite sneers at gays, and such, we don’t even need to talk about “code words”; the hatred is pretty obvious.

And the issue is not that Ron wrote these things, but that he let them go out under his name for years. What does that say about his sense of justice, rhetoric, or even self-image?

Ron Paul is morally compromised. On an issue that makes him look especially bad, by standards of decency. This is unfortunate.

Still, were he on a ballot for president in my state, against any of the current contenders, I would still vote for him. For whereas he is morally compromised, his opponents should be so lucky — their main points of ideology are morally compromised in far more dangerous ways.

After all, Paul does have an important central message, as relayed here by Bruce Ramsey: “Paul’s stubborn consistency on Iraq deserves respect.”

The Ron Paul newsletters, in the news — again! So I’ve un-archived the following.


The following appeared on Wirkman Netizen, on August 8, 2008:

The New Republic once again brought up Ron Paul’s strange career as figurehead for a series of newsletters, complete with racially insensitive statements and provocative rhetoric.

As a writer and editor working in the libertarian movement at the time of these “Ron Paul” newsletters, I have vague recollection of “common knowledge”: it was known who wrote these newsletters, and why. It was money for Ron. It was money for the writers. And it was a way of keeping Ron’s name in the minds of right wingers with money . . . future donors.

It was designed to be entertaining writing. Provocative. It flirted with racism, like Mencken’s did, and Mencken was indeed the model of the style. But these “Ron Paul” writings went further than Mencken’s usually did (at least for publication) along the lines of annoying the racially sensitive; and they sometimes did veer into outright racism.

I was embarrassed by the implied racial hatred, rather disgusted by the general level of hate regardlesss of race. I was also a bit shocked by the writing because the style was so obviously not Ron’s, and so obviously the product of the actual writers, with whom I had tangential relations — is my editor’s* writer my writer?

And yet some bits of this writing, held up for inspection by TNR — for example, the bit about Salman Rushdie — seem interesting and worth discussing, not worth quickly relegating to the trash file. The author of the Rushdie/Zundel “comparison” was primarilly attacking the hypocrisy of the mainstream “liberals” regarding free speech. To characterize this as a simple comparison (and thus to suggest a “moral equation”) is to miss a very big point. I figure that if I read more of this stuff, I’d find more missed points. The provocation is obvious. But there’s intellectual content behind the provocation, and the content is worth considering without the bad connotations elicited by the rhetoric.

Most of us “old-time” libertarians have known about this sad period of Ron Paul’s career from the get-go. We know that it was a lapse on his part. But we who opposed it (and not all of us did) put much of the blame on the writers involved, not on Paul, who was, after all, juggling family, medicine, politics, and continued study of actual economics. That Paul didn’t realize what he was doing to his own moral stance is amazing. His style is one of earnest moralizing. That fits his character. The ugliness of this career move speaks a sad story.

It also indicates the most thing about Ron Paul as presidential timber: he let himself be so easily used and influenced.

But then, so has nearly every president in American history, our current president most of all.

Oh, so who wrote Ron Paul’s newsletter? I have only hearsay and memory to go on. But really, most of us in the libertarian “industry” just “knew” who. I have four names in mind, I think all contributed at one point or another. But maybe it was only a subset of those names, maybe it was just one or two. One of the names is pretty damn obvious. And one of the names is not obvious at all; the style was abandoned for better things, later on.

Like Rodney King, one might prefer we all just get along, move along, and forget about this sorry story. But it is worth exploring. Racism is still a live issue in America. And, apparently, in libertarianism.

* Were R.W. Bradford still alive, I am sure he would be happy to verify what he had heard from the writers themselves. The authorship of the Ron Paul newsletters was, truly, an open secret. Or at least open to those of us at Liberty.