In the end, I don't follow a man; I follow an idea. In fact, I didn't, myself, get into libertarianism, non-interventionism because of Ron Paul. It was other people and the disillusionment of the system. To follow a man will defeat the whole purpose of libertarianism, which, along with non-aggression principle, advocates for individualism. So, whatever Ron Paul does with his connected politics, it's not going to effect what I believe. In other words, whoever is pulling the strings is wasting their time, and still has little understanding of what a true individualist's worldview is.
If say Ron Paul was some corrupt person that was taking advantage of a situation and "mysteriously" exposed, the liberty movement will still continue because it's not about him. The argument for liberty still stands. Of course, this is not how the GOP thinks because much like the DNC they're a bunch of collectivists who need a leader along with a regime, and their only argument is to politically take down leading figures in hopes that people will quit their active opposition to them.
I would call it cynicism for whoever is trying to corral people via RP endorsement, but I think it's more corny and out-of-date thinking, much like Tom Watson's piece advocating for the Democrat party. Though the irony that they have to use a libertarian in order to win or whatever they're doing, shouldn't go unnoticed.
I don't buy for a second that "hardcore" libertarians were gung-ho for Ken. And to say you have to endorse the lesser of two evils is also incredibly weak. Ron did not choose to endorse someone in the race between Romney and Obama so he didn't need to endorse anyone here either. Wouldn't surprise me if Rand asked his dad to do him and his party a favor by endorsing the GOP-er.
One wonders what benefit Ron expects from this to justify besmirching his reputation. Is he planning to run for senator from Texas? His resources and goodwill would be better spent on educational efforts.
Why can't Ron Paul simply answer the question honestly? He's a capitalist with a home schooling program and he has to score some points with the Christian right which is his customer base. Why so ashamed of making money? Why the need to pretend he is about "the greater good" while simultaneously criticizing collectivism? Seems quite hypocritical.
Also, he did not answer the next question regarding anarcho capitalism honestly. Ron Paul believes there is a role for Civil government and that role is dictated by the Bible. Sure he understands Rothbard's arguments for competing police forces etc. He does not support that because he believes there are three Biblically defined spheres of govt: civil govt, church govt and family govt.
Why can't Barry simply answer the question honestly? He's a politician with a health funding program and he has to score some points with the democratic base while sending them back to health insurers. Why the need to pretend he is about "the greater good" while simultaneously criticizing business? Seems quite hypocritical.
In the end, I don't follow a man; I follow an idea. In fact, I didn't, myself, get into libertarianism, non-interventionism because of Ron Paul. It was other people and the disillusionment of the system. To follow a man will defeat the whole purpose of libertarianism, which, along with non-aggression principle, advocates for individualism. So, whatever Ron Paul does with his connected politics, it's not going to effect what I believe. In other words, whoever is pulling the strings is wasting their time, and still has little understanding of what a true individualist's worldview is.
ReplyDeleteIf say Ron Paul was some corrupt person that was taking advantage of a situation and "mysteriously" exposed, the liberty movement will still continue because it's not about him. The argument for liberty still stands. Of course, this is not how the GOP thinks because much like the DNC they're a bunch of collectivists who need a leader along with a regime, and their only argument is to politically take down leading figures in hopes that people will quit their active opposition to them.
I would call it cynicism for whoever is trying to corral people via RP endorsement, but I think it's more corny and out-of-date thinking, much like Tom Watson's piece advocating for the Democrat party. Though the irony that they have to use a libertarian in order to win or whatever they're doing, shouldn't go unnoticed.
- JS
I don't buy for a second that "hardcore" libertarians were gung-ho for Ken.
ReplyDeleteAnd to say you have to endorse the lesser of two evils is also incredibly weak.
Ron did not choose to endorse someone in the race between Romney and Obama so he didn't need to endorse anyone here either.
Wouldn't surprise me if Rand asked his dad to do him and his party a favor by endorsing the GOP-er.
I agree. Something smells funny about this endorsement, just like something smells funny about Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign as a whole.
DeleteOne wonders what benefit Ron expects from this to justify besmirching his reputation. Is he planning to run for senator from Texas? His resources and goodwill would be better spent on educational efforts.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't Ron Paul simply answer the question honestly? He's a capitalist with a home schooling program and he has to score some points with the Christian right which is his customer base. Why so ashamed of making money? Why the need to pretend he is about "the greater good" while simultaneously criticizing collectivism? Seems quite hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteAlso, he did not answer the next question regarding anarcho capitalism honestly. Ron Paul believes there is a role for Civil government and that role is dictated by the Bible. Sure he understands Rothbard's arguments for competing police forces etc. He does not support that because he believes there are three Biblically defined spheres of govt: civil govt, church govt and family govt.
Why can't Barry simply answer the question honestly? He's a politician with a health funding program and he has to score some points with the democratic base while sending them back to health insurers. Why the need to pretend he is about "the greater good" while simultaneously criticizing business? Seems quite hypocritical.
Delete