First they lump Ron Paul in with a group that has no clue what liberty is:
Consider the bold-faced names who could rate, or at least covet, a speaking slot in Tampa: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.But here is the real bad news. Politico writes:
Paul, who will have a robust delegate presence on the floor, could cause Romney the most heartburn. But with his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), harboring future ambitions, it’s not in the elder Paul’s interest to stage a massive demonstration and disrupt the proceedings. Convention planners have taken heart from some of the congressman’s recent comments, most notably a video promoting his own rally in which he said “tone is important.”Politico sure thinks Ron is going to maintain a low profile for the benefit of Rand.
“If the tone is positive, we’re more likely to have success than if it’s a negative tone,” Paul told his supporters in a video posted on his website.
I'm very indebted and grateful to Ron Paul for waking me up back in 2006.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I'm growing tired of the attempts to work within the system. It's impossible.
I don't care what the "future" of the GOP might be. For God's sake, Paul's sone went over to the darkside.
I'm fairly sure that Libertarians or those that have beliefs resembling such will never make up more then 15% of the population.
Call me cynical, stupid, etc., I'll take it.
I just wish Ron Paul would one more time shock me like he did when I first heard him in a 2006 primary debate speaking truth to power.
I want to hear his final speech, whether it's at his rally near the GOP convention, the convention itself, or on several appearances surrounding his retirement on national TV shows say the following, or somehting akin:
"I hate the State. Rothbard had it right. Our government is broken and gov't will always be broken. It is folly to try to "fix" it in any way, but at least I used the bully pulpit to spread the message of liberty-and in that sense I accomplished my most important goal."
I think a retirement speech of the above in the right venue would be at least one more big nail in gov'ts coffin. Further, it will maybe radicalize a few more beyond just hoping that a return to the Constitution is feasible let alone the "solution" to our problems.
I want to see the inner Anarchist in Ron Paul bust out in full display. I want him to become a full enemy of the state in his retirement. A transcendancy so to speak.
You have to understand you don't have to be an anarchist to be a libertarian.
DeleteRon Paul has managed to convert a lot of people to libertarianism, both of the anarchist and minarchist variety.
If he were to present himself as an anarchist now, it could be a step way too far for a substantial amount of people that right now believe in him and small government, who may be disturbed by the concept of a stateless society. He shouldn't want to shock those people back into the arms of full blown statism.
Besides, many people might believe he was always an anarchist in the first place, masquarading as a small government guy, and bringing in money on the basis of a false profile, only conveniently rejecting it once he lost his final shot at the presidency.
Let people find anarcho-capitalism by their own logical conclusions through the works of those that are/were already anarchists.
"You have to understand you don't have to be an anarchist to be a libertarian."
DeleteNo... though you do have to be an anarchist if you want to be a libertarian AND not be self-contradictory and irrational.
@ averros
DeleteYou'll get no argument about that from me.
"If he were to present himself as an anarchist now, it could be a step way too far for a substantial amount of people that right now believe in him and small government, who may be disturbed by the concept of a stateless society. He shouldn't want to shock those people back into the arms of full blown statism. "
ReplyDeleteWherther it's anarchy or minarchy, 15% is the number from my perspective...it'll never be any more. I'm not sure that 15% isn't too optimistic.
"it'll never be any more."
ReplyDeleteThat's a baseless assertion.
Before Ron Paul's run in 2007, the numbers were smaller than they are now. We've seen growth in just 5 years. That's 5 years in a history of libertarianism that has lasted several centuries.
There is no way for you to tell that it will never be more, because you have no crystal ball with which to see future events.
You don't know if there will be a public person similar to Ron Paul further educating the masses. You don't take into consideration the simple fact that as America continues to slide toward the statist abyss, more and more people will wake up and ask themselves what the alternative is. And i think you know very well it IS sliding into the abyss.
Above all, for the large timespan of libertarianism's history over the past centuries, there was never such a thing as the internet, across which all information is readily available, and make libertarianism much less esoteric, and which isn't controlled by powerful interests, foisting indoctrination and propaganda on people.
Put the word "libertarian" into Google, and up come millions of links to articles and even books. People never had such access to this philosophy before, and all they need to look is for someone to mention the word.
"That's a baseless assertion."
DeleteYea, that's true. It's just my opinion. Hopefully it's wrong.
You have to admit though that since the big Ron Paul shock of his 2007 primary stuff that the growth has tapered off.
So many have their heads buried so deep that even under a total empire collapse they'll be screaming for more gov't...including the GOPers that Ron tries to court.
They're totally invested in statism. One doesn't have to be so blind as to ignore the 90% of the GOPers booing Ron Paul regularly at most of the primary debates to see where things are going. Certainly he won't 10% on the Dem side....
I don't understand what you feel the problem is by him admitting that the gov't is a failure, and that all gov'ts fail.
Who would he be chasing off exactly? lol
From what I see Ron Paul supporters are if nothing steadfast. I can't imagine a Ron Paul supporter of any kind saying, "Wow, Ron just said gov't is unfixable-I can't support him now".
lmao...I seriously doubt you could even find 5% of RP supporters that would feel that way.
All RP would be doing by decrying the reality of the situation is adding to his long list of predictions coming true. The US empire will fail, how and when as yet to be determined...but I agree with you...it will fail. So why not just go ahead and tell everyone that and tell them gov't isn't the hope/solution for anything?
"You have to admit though that since the big Ron Paul shock of his 2007 primary stuff that the growth has tapered off."
DeleteDid you think the battle would be won in small span of time? Or did you think one man would be enough to bring the movement to critical mass? Those would be miscalculations and a total underestimation of the problem.
You made an absolute statement that the numbers would *never* grow beyond 15%, which i rejected. That doesn't mean the opposite, that it will happen quickly, or even that i know much of anything at all about how long anything will take, or even if we will be successful. As a matter of fact, if liberty the way most of us see it will happen, it will most likely not happen in our lifetimes, but it may in the lifetime of your children or grandchildren.
Today's libertarians MUST educate their children, and anyone that is receptive, about things like logic, ethics and liberty from very early on as a counteract to any statist propaganda they will get outside the home. Teaching next generations is what should grow numbers. It's going to be slow, but if it only interests you as long as you are sure it will happen in your lifetime, then you're in it for the wrong reasons.
***
"I don't understand what you feel the problem is by him admitting that the gov't is a failure, and that all gov'ts fail.
Who would he be chasing off exactly? lol"
I already explained who he might be chasing off.
People who believe in small government, but not no-government. Some minarchists unfortunately think anarchists/voluntaryists are crazy, scary or even dangerous. If they think Ron Paul was one of those all along, they may feel cheated and lose faith in the truth of what he's been saying.
***
"From what I see Ron Paul supporters are if nothing steadfast. I can't imagine a Ron Paul supporter of any kind saying, "Wow, Ron just said gov't is unfixable-I can't support him now"."
Why not?
You seem to be saying they are supporting a man, rather than his ideas. If they support his ideas as he now presents them, why would they all automatically follow him when he changes those ideas from a typical American concept, constitutional republic, to an "anarchist society"?
Even if it were true that they support the man rather than what he stands for, they would be of no use. They would be mere disciples, part of a cult of personality. If they are not about his ideas, but about his personality, then they have no business being part of the movement anyway. People who will follow a man anywhere no matter what he says can't be trusted.
And therefor, i repeat what i say, that people need to come to their OWN conclusions about if and why a small government is even needed at all.
"You seem to be saying they are supporting a man, rather than his ideas."
DeleteHave you not considered that is a real possibility?
Regardless, I think you presume much; that the average RP supporter can't come to the conclusion that "no gov't" is the solution given the history of gov'ts in general seems more of a stretch to me than this notion you have that we must carry the fragile eggs of minarchists with moderate notions. I'm calling for Ron Paul to simply voice the truth.
I think what Ron Paul did was expose people to Libertarian ideas that most were never exposed to in the first place. In some respects, I think I have more respect for Ron Paul supporters than you might in terms of what they can cope with rationally/philosophically. I happen to agree with you in your sentiments: "Even if it were true that they support the man rather than what he stands for, they would be of no use."
So let's dispense with them if that's the case. Again, the logic drawing one to the conclusion that anarchy is the solution isn't much of a stretch for the average RP supporter that is already 95% more rational that 85% of the public.
"Those would be miscalculations and a total underestimation of the problem."
In the words of a famous philosopher: "That's a baseless assertion."
"You seem to be saying they are supporting a man, rather than his ideas."
DeleteHave you not considered that is a real possibility?"
Yes I have. But it contradicts your own suggestion that "the average RP supporter CAN come to the conclusion that "no gov't" is the solution given the history of gov'ts"
So i am baffled as to why you say i should consider the possibility that they are following the man rather than his ideas, yet at the same time i am supposedly selling them short because they can come to their own conclusions about the government.
Make up your mind.
"that the average RP supporter can't come to the conclusion that "no gov't" is the solution given the history of gov'ts in general seems more of a stretch to me than this notion you have that we must carry the fragile eggs of minarchists with moderate notions."
I answered part of this above.
Furthermore, as strange as this may sound, us anarchists don't need Ron Paul. Many minarchists do. Precisely because they still believe in government, and without Ron Paul have no one left to believe in politically.
"In some respects, I think I have more respect for Ron Paul supporters than you might in terms of what they can cope with rationally/philosophically."
You wanted me to consider they are mere sheep following a man rather than his ideas. Apparently you yourself are not putting much stock in what they can cope with.
As for myself, i believe some of them don't need Ron Paul to think. But a lot of them do. Where else where they before Ron Paul told them what is obvious?
Many of them, while followers, are still American, proud of their country and their constitution. They will only follow Ron Paul so far before things get too radical too quickly.
But hey, i completely admit this is speculation.
All i can say is i don't 'need' Ron Paul to be an anarchist. For the cause of libertarianism, i just 'need' him to be a libertarian and maximize the number of people he'll convert.
"So let's dispense with them if that's the case. Again, the logic drawing one to the conclusion that anarchy is the solution isn't much of a stretch for the average RP supporter that is already 95% more rational that 85% of the public."
And yet, many people that have been libertarian already for a long time, including some very big icons, have themselves refused to make that leap of logic. Why would (former) conservatives be more rational than people that already have been libertarians for decades?
I claim that the leap from minarchism to anarchism may actually be a greater stretch, than the leap from conservative statism to libertarianism. After all, both minarchism and statism are still based on the same false arguments of a state being necessary for various purposes. They only disagree about the size of it, not about the very nature of it and the necessity of it. Being more rational than big government statists is not a big achievement. Being more rational than minarchists is a bigger achievement.
"Those would be miscalculations and a total underestimation of the problem."
In the words of a famous philosopher: "That's a baseless assertion."
Ironically, you claim i make a baseless assertion when i responded to you yourself claiming that the growth of the libertarian movement was tapering off. So now again we seem to have a self-contradiction on your part. Is the growth tapering off? Or are we at the dawn of a libertarian utopia?
Let me put it to you this way; if after centuries of the existence of libertarianism, and considering the size of the state and the majority being blind worshippers of collectivism, you truly think that liberty as we see it will now come quickly, or be brought about by one man, then i have a couple of bridges to sell you for a one-time-only, crazy price of $100 each.
Just how long ago has it been since Ron Paul said that he had no intention of causing trouble at the GOP convention? It's been months at least. All they want is a chance to vote and to debate the issues. Not long ago, all conventions were like that. But in this media age, nominees want to script the conventions down to the last comma. Ron Paul won't be scripted so they won't let him speak.
ReplyDeletePersonnally, I think it's dumb. Opening the convention up to free debate would not cost Romney any votes and could gain a few for him. But his campaign handlers have never been accused of having imagination.
...Isn't Expecting Anything Big...
ReplyDeleteThought I had an Ed Crane's buttocks & Jesse Benton's ego line here but nope. Got nothing.