The thing to notice in the New York Times article is the six degrees of separation by which libertarianism can be slandered and belittled, and dismissed, because one person knows one person, who knew one person, who could be considered racist. Classic - Ron Paul once gave Murray Rothbard a ride from an airport (...) and Rothbard at one point expressed support for David Duke, who David Duke at one point, although not longer at the point when Rothbard endorsed him, was a clan member. This, of course, means that all libertarian theory is wrong, everything that Murray Rothbard ever wrote (...) is wrong. There's nothing in there worth seeing, because he at one point for explicit political, tactical reasons expressed support for David Duke, who was formerly in the clan. Hence libertarianism is wrong.

This is why I bring out the fact, that the clan, racism and slavery, Jim Crow and the Solid South are all bastions of the Democratic Party. And we have members of the Democratic Party, who up until very recently, powerful, respected members, who were literally in the clan. The biggest example (...) is Robert C. Byrd. Robert C. Byrd was in the clan for decades. He was a Grand Cyclops. He wore the sheets. He expressed his support, voted against every black Chief Justice he could. And he gets a eulogy in The New York Times.

(...)

If Ron Paul is wrong, because Rothbard at one point supported the guy, who formerly was in the clan, then The New York Times is a fuckin' clan publication, because it's given an eulogy to a clan member.

lengthyounarther "Liberal Hypocrite, I Rebuke thee"