Friday, February 14, 2014

Run Murray, Run!

I note some comments to my earlier post, It's Official: Murray Sabrin to Seek the Republican Nomination for the US Senate,that

A. Murray will lose


B. There is no value in running for office.

First. yes it is true that Murray is unlikely to win. However, I believe there is value in running if you run, not to get elected, but to spread the libertarian message. I made this point in a 2012 post, How to Run for Office Like Ron Paul.

I would imagine that somewhere near 30%, maybe more, of those who now call themselves libertarians do so because they first heard about libertarianism because of Ron Paul. Dr. Paul had an incredible impact in expanding the libertarian movement, but that was because he stuck to principles and wasn't seeking power.

The problem now is that most politicians running from office who call themselves libertarians dilute their libertarian positions because they first and foremost want to get elected and are only then interested in spreading what becomes a diluted libertarian message. Extremely rare are the Ron Paul-type office seekers, who run and run on principle.

Murray Sabrin strikes me as being from the same cloth as Dr. Paul, he is not going to shed principle to get elected. He will get the libertarian message out in debates and other events he holds.

So I welcome the Murray Sabrin candidacy. It will bring attention to principled libertarianism in New Jersey.


  1. I consider myself a libertarian and was shown the light by Ron Paul's run in 2008.

  2. Even if true, keep that to yourself. Ron wouldn't have gotten as far as he did if he had a so-called supporter saying he would lose. What the fuck.

  3. 'Losing' is a broad term. Just because a libertarian loses in a primary doesn't mean that he did not get a majority of ballots. It is just when the ballots are counted that mysterious things happen to the numbers.

    Ron Paul was a frequent victim of it in 2012.

  4. In case you do get elected, as Ron Paul did, how do you square with being a receiver of stolen property? If you agree that taxation is theft, which I do, does it not violate the NAP when you get a government check? Doesn't that make you a receiver of money that was forcefully take from someone else? ...Just Sayin'.

    1. The money is stolen whether it is Ron that receives it or not.
      The question is: would libertarians prefer it goes to some sociopath statist using it to further legitimize the state, or would they prefer it at least go to someone who uses it to bring libertarianism to the masses, to shine a light on the government's immoral actions, and to try to counter other politicians.
      Without Ron Paul as a politician, we would have likely had a lot LESS new "recruits" today.

      It is basically the same as using the money of the maffia. It is already stolen, may as well take some of it if you can and do some good with it because otherwise it is just going to fund the Gambini family's next big party.

    2. You make a good point Tony. I never looked at it that way. I like RP. Unfortunately few politicians are as honest and trustworthy as RP.
      Most, including his son, are very susceptible to Acton's disease.

  5. Poor Ron can't escape getting attacked from purist libertarians.

    1. What the hell are you talking about? Ron Paul is not getting attacked at all.

    2. I was wondering what the hell he is talking about as well Tony. I don't attack Ron at all. Rand? Yes. But not Ron.

    3. @ Mike
      Funny thing is, even if Ron Paul is "attacked" by purists, SO WHAT?

      Of course, the "compromise cowards" crowd won't understand it, because they worship people rather than ideas, and don't have a clue about the foundations of the thing they claim to adhere to. They'll cling to any snake oil salesman in Washington who promises them some magic beans, because their desperation is greater than their self respect and they still don't understand how futile it is to put trust in a politician, ANY politician.

      Even Ron Paul would have achieved virtually nothing of long term success as a politician. But his greatness was in his educational value (of which Rand Paul has sub-zero, which is why his value is sub-zero, period, and we hack him down so often. The snake oil salesman thing).

      Some may be novices at libertarianism and have yet to learn this lesson (as i once had to), some will never get it and will most likely revert back to full blown statism.
      Either way they'll have to accept sooner or later that they'll probably never see the kind of freedom they long for in their lifetimes. It's not a selfish thing for smart libertarians; it's an idealistic thing we stand for out of principle even if we ourselves will never live to experience this liberty.

  6. "In case you do get elected, as Ron Paul did, how do you square with being a receiver of stolen property?"

    Yeah, you shouldn't cash the check of your salary if you're elected.

  7. I wonder how these good libertarians that reject taking salary as a senator get around. Surely they don't use government roads. Or government money. Or everything else the state monopolizes...

    1. Stupid argument.

      First though I don't have any problem with Murray or Ron running or becoming Senators. As for roads. Well, that's because they have a MONOPOLY genius. If the government FORCED everyone to buy food from it would I reject it and just starve? No. DUH! Same thing with money. I've got a gun to my head.

      Think before saying these things.

    2. Dumb ass.

      If the government forces me to have a driver's license, should i just forget about driving and ride a bike?

      Whether libertarians like it or not, the state has a MONOPOLY and a set of laws they enforce. In order to be able to function normally, even libertarians must use "goods and services" that come from the state, because guess what, dimwit, we cannot rely on competitors to provide these "goods and services" since they are OUTLAWED.

      Aside from that, dullard, since libertarians are ALSO forced to pay taxes, they by definition have the goddamn RIGHT to use roads, or government money, or anything else they monopolize.
      Why should we not use things we've ALREADY BEEN, AND CONTINUE TO BE, FORCED TO PAY FOR???

      See? That's what happens when egg brained statists think they are smart and try to fart out arguments against so-called libertarian "hypocrisy". If you just don't get libertarianism, and you obviously don't, you really shouldn't be so happy to make an ass of yourself.
      Maybe you should stick to trying with all might to justify government force and violence against innocents. Your arguments would be just as stupid, but at least you'd be more in your element.

  8. "Extremely rare are the Ron Paul-type office seekers, who run and run on principle."

    That is extremely wrong. Principled candidates are a dime a dozen. There are principled candidates that run in a lot of races and they get 1% of the vote. Sabrin will obviously do better, because he has other things going that just being principled.

    Candidates who are good salesmen and can win or at least generate some level of enthusiasm around their campaign are much more rare. Being a closer is just as important having the right views. If nobody hears those views or is convinced, then how much is liberty advanced. One Rand Paul or Justin Amash is worth 100,000 "principled" candidates who run and get .02% of the vote..

    1. They are worth nothing, because they aren't libertarians. They are statists in variable degrees, packaged in libertarian rhetoric. How much liberty is advanced by these types you only have to look at Reagan. If you have no principles than you're a political whore who has a price.

      Also, your claim that principled candidates are a dime a dozen is ludicrous. Since 99,8% of all politicians are statists and think the state can do, legally, what individual people cannot, they are by very definition immoral, corrupt and liars. The complete opposite of principled.

      And i should once again make clear that for all his alleged "salesmen" qualities, Rand Paul is not in the top three in MOST polls of Republicans running for the presidency.
      He is regarded as neither fish nor foul because he is neither fish nor foul.
      He is just a run of the mill Republican who puts himself and his party first, and on the national level few people care. Least of all real libertarians.