Writes Lew:
[I]t will be a police-state hellhole, especially for anyone with libertarian sympathies. The swarming cops, SS, DHS, FBI, CIA, et al. will be looking for the chance to taser and cage Paulians. Trained agent provocateurs will seek to cause incidents.I mean, he is not enthusiastic about the convention at all:
[T]he place will be full of the illegitimate rich lording it over you, arrogant types who made their fortunes through politics. A middle-class Paulian is dirt to these people. Third, the thousands of non-Paul delegates and alternates--like their heroes Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, etc., and like the media and the staffers--will be warmongers, torture fans, drone lovers, and concentration camp advocates. They will oppose the 4th amendment, the free market, Ron Paul and liberty--I could go on.
And he provides this advice to those who still may want to go:
Tampa, even more than the rest of the country, will be Occupied Terrritory. You could be targeted for wearing a Ron button, let alone refusing in some way to bow down to your betters. Now, you may want to go for the experience. Understood. After all, I did so myself, though in a less totalitarian America. But if you are a radical, keep your mouth shut, your smile pasted on, and your demeanor lackadaisacle, for your own safety. Obey everyone in a uniform or expensive suit.And know this, some in the comments have suggested that Ron Paul has some secret plan, he doesn't. For all practical purposes the campaign is over. It's time to think beyond the Ron Paul campaign. It's time to think about other ways to advance liberty. The Ron Paul campaign has resulted in a great base of new people who are learning about liberty for the first time, they should continue their studies, they should start up blogs and learn how to communicate libertarian ideas. Let the politicians plot, liberty understood will defeat them every time, with no need to battle them at local, state and national conventions over Robert's Rules of Order that they will ignore. They can take a mic away, but they can't take out of a person's mind the beauty of liberty once a person understands it.
"They can take a mic away, but they can't take out of a person's mind the beauty of liberty once a person understands it."
ReplyDeleteRobert, this depends on how effective the reeducation camps are. I'm betting they have techniques that would convert even the staunchest libertarian to Marxism.
Lew correctly understands that electoral politics is a dead end.
ReplyDeleteTo succeed in politics you must have something to offer, some sort of bribe or payment, to specific groups. Libertarians cannot do this. There may be some outliers from time to time like Ron Paul, winning some position in their local areas, but it will not happen nationally.
Libertarianism is not compatible with democracy. We hold that an individuals rights stand above that of any type of 'collective will' as expressed by democracy.
sure you'll say anything if your beaten up enough, but they can't see what you're thinking and then they find like the communists and nazis you've created a nation of liars, drunks and footdraggers.
ReplyDeleteBut Heath, America is already a nation of liars, drunks and footdraggers.
DeleteOh! I get it! We're too late...
Well, Lew is certainly a Debbie-Downer today. I completely respect Lew and imagine I always will, but I will fight on! Taking the fight to the heart of the beast is often necessary as Robert showed so courageously when he gave that magnificent speech at the NY Fed. We shall go to the National Convention and attempt with all our might to get Dr. Paul the nomination. Win or Lose at this battle, Liberty will prevail.
ReplyDeleteIf Lew’s comments are strategic to take pressure off of us at the State Conventions that remain, I welcome the assistance. Let the establishment think we have quit. Their apathy only makes us stronger.
yeah, I saw that too. I am wondering if the idiotic moves coming out of the Paul campaign have left a sour taste in Lew's mouth. I know I've been pretty disappointed.
ReplyDeleteIf all Ron Paul followers moved to New Hampshire en masse under the banner of the Free State Project, they could take over the legislature there, nullify all unconstitutional Federal laws and make a huge Libertarian free zone that would attract people from all over the country and the world.
ReplyDeleteVery soon it would become the richest state in the union, surpassing California. This is a real world solution that offers Ron Paul followers and all lovers of Liberty the sort of life they want to live immediately instead of waiting for the dumbed down masses to wake up after the inevitable catastrophic economic collapse brought about by the destruction of the dollar.
A free state, using its own money made of gold and silver, not levying any taxes, with a private police force, an international 70s style airport that is TSA free and all the other Libertarian bells and whistles would be so attractive, its population would double in twelve months as Americans domestic and expatriate and tyranny weary foreigners to boot all arrive to live free. You would see a twenty first century version of the scenes at Ellis Island.
The problem with the FSP is that it is so close to the Liberal Left Progressive heartland. As the libertarian ideology begins to improve the economy those leftards move in and usurp power to enact their agenda.
DeleteCome to Texas.
Absolutely! NH is flooded with refugees from Taxachusetts, who brought their socialist / fascist ideals with them.
DeleteChris, Texas is just too BIG. Too few frogs in too big a pond to make an impact. I'm thinking Montana. Lots of commodities in the ground, lots of space and freedom.
Myself, I'll stay offshore. I'm an island of one. (with occasional conjugal visitations if I play my cards right!)
Capn Mike... the people who move from MA to NH are generally less statist. Think about it, if they loved statism so much, they'd just stay in MA, not move to one of the most libertarian states in the country. Many move here to escape high taxes and regulations.
DeleteAnd NH would be invaded and occupied by the military. Lincoln made that possible and the establishment will have no problem using it.
DeleteNH will not be invaded. The Free State Project is not secessionist, it merely wants to run its own laws inside the framework of the constitution.
DeleteFurthermore, when the hundreds of billions of dollars start to flow into NH, other states in the union will imitate it in the hopes of attracting capital and people. A virtuous cascade would ensure, transforming America. No army, no Federal agency would be able to stop it.
The yuppie types from other states have invaded NH and brought thier progressive ideas already, not the masshole liberals. The state is not the "Live Free or Die" State any more. Thats not to say that a Libertarion reversal wouldn't be a great possibilty here in NH! I would think it would be easier here than anywhere.
DeletePlease print the remarks i just sent as NH JIM
DeleteRather than have an invasion of Libertarions into NH which could cause a large scale Loving County, TX. style backlash and really an impossible movement of thousands of like minded Libertarions here,there's another way. You have Ron Paul Money Bombs for the New Hampshire Ron Paul Party and vet new NH candidates to make sure they are true blue Ron Paul believers, then finanically back them to the hilt! This way the Government takeover is doable and not seen as intrusive as hoards of strangers coming over the border.After NH becomes the Hong Kong of the west(Hong Kong is the lowest taxed and and the most free place on the planet) everyone will come to invest here.NH will turn heads all over the world and Ron Paul showed everyone the way!
DeleteI've gotten several emails from Ron Paul's campaign about a moneybomb tomorrow. The moneybomb is listed as "the last for the campaign." If the campaign is over, and there's no campaign debt, I'm not sure why they're trying to get more money from supporters. This will probably be the first moneybomb I opt out of.
ReplyDeleteThe government is systemically biased (in numerous ways) to become ever larger. The Ron Paul R3voLution was a "one in a million" shot at turning things around. It's difficult to have high hopes that anything will change -- no matter how many people minds we fill with the beauty of liberty. Too many people are willing to use violence to force you into their order. Too many people have become accustomed to a free ride at others' expense. To choose to "opt out" is possible, but it definitely leaves you substantially poorer as anything you do to become more affluent puts you "on the radar" of the thieves.
I respectfulyl disagree with Mr Rockwell. Yes I understand agent provacatuers will be there. I understand the neocons will control the show, but we need our martyrs too. Make them show their hand. Some borderline conservative/libertarians still haven't seen the light...if agent provacatuers can be exposed then do so...if we can show them arresting people for speech then lets show it...if we can show them breaking their own rules then lets continue to force them to put it on display. I don't want ot go down there and get tazed...but I very much support those who do.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. We go. We work. We push Paul's ideas and platform. If the opportunity presents itself, we nominate him from the floor.
DeleteBetween now and then we continue to take control of state conventions, assume the power over the party, get selected as delegates. Make it impossible for them to ignore us. Toss the neocons out on their ears.
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, Jesse Benton was the weak link in the campaign, coming from Tom Woods, no less.
ReplyDeleteIf I'd been elected as a Paul delegate I would go. CPAC was crawling with neocons and I still had a good time.
ReplyDeleteGood luck to Mr Paul's supporters in Tampa, I'm not one of you (I may well be one, if it wasn't for Mr Paul's, frankly, quite asinine foreign policy attitudes :) ), but anything that could conceivably push Mr Romney towards a more pronounced small state agenda and more responsible fiscal policies is clearly a good thing. Having said that, I feel compelled to add that I haven't seen such a perfect ikebana of social frustrations, complexes and paranoid delusions as Mr Rockwell for quite some time :))) As far as I'm concerned, this guy gives a new meaning to the phrase "vicarious embarassment" :))
ReplyDeleteSpeaker,
DeleteWhat do you find asinine about Ron Paul's foreign policy attitudes?
SPEAKER, your ignorance of the reasons for the economic, civil liberty and moral aspects of Ron Paul's foreign policy show that you are unaware of the corrosive effect they have on domestic policy, especially regarding taxes, regulations and the police state.
DeleteUntil you are aware of your ignorance please refrain from speaking to educated adults. Thank you.
R Dale Fitzgerald
Even if your comment on Ron Paul's "asinine foreign policy attitudes" were correct (they are not), your "attitude" still amazes me.
DeleteWith all the unbelievable problems in America right now, you hang the country's future on your perceived "good" foreign policy. That's like being on the deck of the Titanic with the ship capsizing, all the furniture flying overboard, the towering iceberg hanging over your head, and you say "I'm not getting on that lifeboat. The guy at the oar is the cook who served me shitty pizza last night."
You are the one with the asinine belief system.
Larry, Mr Paul is just another moralist who thinks that it's possible to ignore the pragmatic geostrategic concerns based on the voluntarist, a priori ethical criteria. It isn't, the world isn't an ethical construct, and the US happen to be a global empire with a global reach and global responsibilities, in an increasingly interconnected and unified world whose current economic and political system is based primarily on the force of the American arms. Thus his parochial, isolationist and anti-interventionist foreign-policy platform isn't just very unrealistic and naive, but also potentially dangerous (that is, if he stood any serious chances of actually influencing things at the legislative or executive level, which he fortunately doesn't) for vital American interests and global economic and political stability. I would also like to see fewer expensive and useless full-scale military interventions like Iraq or Afghanistan (where planes, drones or surgical strikes would suffice, why put American lives at risk and, especially, why install unstable and eventually doomed pseudo-democratic regimes where there are no rudimentary prerequisits for democracy and a more friendly dictator would do a much better job?) and more control over the military industrial complex, but Mr Paul's dream of recreating some kind of idyllic Jeffersonian utopia "leading by example" in the second decade of the 21st century with all its Putins, Ahmdinejads and Kim Jong-uns, strikes me as not very practicable, if not mildly retarded :))
DeleteMr Fitzgerald, if you're an example of an "educated adult", then I wonder who the primitive, fanatical ignorants who use disqualifications instead of arguments might be :)))
Speaker,
DeleteWith all due respect, I do not find your argument convincing as it appears to be inconsistent, contradictory and self-refuting based on what you've stated.
This seems most apparent when you (incorrectly) critique Ron Paul's "moralism", and, I believe, by implication, ethical construct, then attempt to subtly introduce your own version of moralism and ethical construct which you deny exists.
In short, your argument seems more like reasons that sound good rather than good, sound reasons and, as I am sure you know, there is a world of difference.
To put an even finer point on it, Speaker, if what you say is true, then let us eat and drink, for tomoorow we die.
"Speaker", I for one would much appreciate if you could elaborate on what *you see* as "vital American interests" and "global economic and political stability".
DeleteSpeaker -- on the one hand you want Romney to be a spending cutter and more fiscally responsible, but on the other you embrace his foreign policy. That kind of logic reminds me of the Democrats who want government out of the private lives of people, but also want to ban firearms, cars with low gas mileage, censor the internet, force mandated healthcare on people, ban free speech if it is "hateful," etc.
DeleteThey don't match. You can either be for fiscal responsibility, or you can be for endless wars, policing the world, using "defense" money to spread feminism and build bridges and buildings that we destroyed with other tax dollars, and occupying stone age level muslim people who will never embrace or accept western democracy.
"Speaker", I notice that you haven't yet elaborated on what you see as "vital American interests" and "global economic and political stability". What's holding you back? What are you afraid of?
DeleteI understand what Rockwell is saying especially since conservatives are viewing him as a nice painful thorn in their side in the last few years. However, Libertarians can't back down this is a long drawn out match between libertarianism and conservatism. Conservatives keep throwing their cheap shots and we are still standing. They will do anything to discredit the Paul Libertarian movement, the best thing for libertarians to do is to think "what would Paul do". Don't give conservatism any rope to use their cadre of thugs to shut us down.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the stories that came out and pictures of the storm troopers from the 2008 RNC in St. Paul, I'd say Lew is spot on in his assessment.
ReplyDeleteI wish everyone who goes the absolute best of luck.
Lew is right. The anti-Paul forces will be abundant. The other issue is that political parties are private clubs and as such, are not inclined toward the fairness Paulians are hoping to be met with. St. Paul was a nightmare four years ago an I can't imagine Tampa being any better. I predict that if it looks as though Willard won't win on the first ballot, the forces that be will wait until the majority of Paul supporters are off at an event and move to anoint Willard by acclamation.
ReplyDeleteI have much gratitude for Ron Paul, but I have been very dejected since he made his announcement. Sure, it's great that people are more interested in liberty. But it's too little too late as I see it. Since Ron Paul came onto the national scene in 2007, has there been one single significant advance for liberty in the US? I can't name one, but I'd love to be wrong. However, the state continues to swell larger and more aggressive with no end in sight.
ReplyDeleteSo, people are taking more interest in the Fed? But the Fed is more powerful than ever. Who really cares about their token press conferences?
So, people on the right are discussing foreign policy more seriously? The "defense" budget is over $800 billion dollars, and we're still bombing brown people the world over.
So, people are interested in sound money? Great, but it's still illegal to compete with the Fed, and it doesn't appear to be a viable option any time soon.
And so on.
At this point, I think Ron Paul, and the rest of us, have been little more than a minor annoyance to the establishment (although Lew Rockwell, Wenzel, Woods, and the rest have done quite nicely thanks to Ron Paul, and there's nothing wrong with that). It's very sad that so many lovers of liberty, myself included, seem to think that the best case scenario is a hope for a better world after these goons shatter it into a million pieces. I truly hope I'm wrong and welcome comments in disagreement.
I can only echo Dylan Thomas:
Delete"Do not go gentle into that good night..."
Die Tryin'
"they can't take out of a person's mind the beauty of liberty once a person understands it"
ReplyDeleteDr. Paul said as much to me when I met him a couple weeks ago. You can't take it out, but you can also recognize a losing battle when you see it. I think if there is to be any chance of liberty rising it needs to happen locally - and I'm less optimistic these days that it will. Sad.
This is a reply to Anonymous @8:42 PM
ReplyDelete"The people who move from MA to NH are generally less statist."
I disagree. NH, FL and states that surround CA have definitely become more statist over the years. Statists are parasites. Once they use up one host they spread to the next host.
The people who move from MA to NH might be less statist than the rest of MA, but they are still more statist than NH.
ReplyDeleteIt's like the old joke about the idiot who moved from place A to place B and made both places smarter in the process...