Sunday, April 13, 2014

If Only Rand Paul Had the Courage of the Socialist Seattle City Council Member Kshama Sawant

What do Kshama Sawant and Ron Paul have in common?

They don't compromise. As wrong as Sawant is about her economics, she knows that the positive response she is getting is because there is discontent in the land.

Note to Rand Paul supporters, you don't have to compromise your principles, especially when there is as much discontent across the land as now. recently spoke with Sawant and at one point she said this:
You don’t have to be a socialist to get it, you have to be just an ordinary person in America. The vast majority of young people especially understand that the economy is not working for them and they are looking for something better. Look at the poll that was done nationwide after the federal government shutdown ended. Sixty percent of Americans said they were fed up with the two-party system — they know it doesn’t work and they want a third party.

This is all an indication of the frustration and the disgust that people feel about the political establishment — about the fact that the big banks were bailed out and the rest of us were sold out. It’s starting to crystallize in people’s minds, but they’re not necessarily calling themselves socialists. What they do want is somebody who will fight for them.

Anybody on the left could have run the campaign that we ran. But they didn’t. We did. And it’s not coincidental — it’s because I’m a socialist that I’m very clear about what I stand for. I’ll never apologize for my support for workers’ interest. I did not take a dime from big business so I’m not beholden to them in any way. I did not curry favor with the party establishment, but I did have a great number of Democratic Party supporters who agreed with my campaign and who campaigned for me because they are tired of their own party officials not doing what they believe in.

So not only do I think that socialism isn’t a barrier, it offers a refreshing change in the conversation.
While socialism may have more resonance with many in Seattle, than in the rest of the country, Ron Paul has shown that principled libertarianism can find its own following in America. It is terrible that Rand wants to distort that message, rather than to pick up the principled libertarian torch and see how far he can carry it.

Politics is a dirty business when compromise is an essential part of a strategy to advance a political career . The only role for politics should be to educate the masses about liberty. Rand's compromises and awkward phrasing of his positions, clouds that message. If only Rand had the courage of Kshama Sawant.


  1. Ron Paul = statist

    That means he can't be a "principled" libertarian. He wants taxes for a national defense, listen to his interview with Tom woods.
    This is a violation of the NAP.
    I love Ron Paul, I use to support him. I so desperately hope that he turns into an ancap before he passes.

    1. Not everyone who isn't an anarchist is a statist. Mises wasn't an anarchist either, and he derided statism. Lew Rockwell and Walter Block are two of the biggest anarchists in the world and they love Ron Paul, does that make them statists by association? Get real.

    2. To Anonymous 1:10: (I cannot find the Interview with Tom Woods that you refer to...) But, to be fair, Ron Paul has always held that he is a 'Constitutionalist', in support of "limited government"...has always been against the Federal Reserve and Central banks, and so, does propose the same kind of taxes allowed by the Constitution...Excise Taxes.
      He has himself admitted that he has not yet been able to embrace 'anarchism' (wish I could find THAT YouTube), but I do not see why this would exclude him from being a "principled" libertarian. Perhaps I am wrong here, but this KIND of tax does not violate the NAP, as I see it.

    3. You clearly don't understand what a statist is.

      Ron Paul believes that government is necessary, therefore he is a statist. Statism comes in all sorts of varieties. His statism is different and preferably to Harry Reid's for example but Paul is a statist none the less.

      Don't get emotional because someone you like is called a statist. Deal with the facts.

      Watch this.

      I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ron Paul. I would love to meet him and have a conversation. That would be a true honor. But he is a statist, there is no way to argue against that.

      And only ancaps are principled libertarians. We cannot make exceptions for those willing to violate the NAP just because we love and respect them.

    4. Every tax in every form violates the NAP. It's involuntary and there is the threat of violence for non compliance.

      Here is Ron Paul saying he isn't an anarchist because he thinks a national defense cannot be provided in a voluntary society.

    5. So volunteer fire departments are statism? If your answer is no, then who is the unprincipled one now?

      Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that he is a voluntarist. While he views national defense as a public good, he doesn't advocate pointing guns at people and threatening to kidnap them to pay a bill for something they don't use.

      Why would actual defense be so expensive that it requires a tax? Most of the time, it would go totally unused, with a trivial upkeep cost - just like a volunteer fire department!

      There is a video somewhere on Youtube where Ron Paul says that the long term goal should be competing systems, where people can choose to leave one system and join another, voluntarily.

      So maybe he's a panarchist, not an anarchist? Whoopdeefreakinda. That's nearly identical to the Mises position that any individual should be able to secede.

      Saying that only anarcho-capitalism is principled libertarianism is bogus. It's just one system which, in theory, would appear in a voluntary society. Other voluntary systems might be attempted and fail, or be outcompeted by anarcho-capitalism.

      That doesn't make everything else a state and everyone else a statist.

    6. Listen to the damn interview ya goof. He is a statist. Not an anarchist despite the interview you brought up.

      Don't get your panties in a bunch because you like Ron Paul. Think rationally. He was asked straight up by woods if he was an anarchist and he said no. The reason he listed was national security.... Meaning he doesn't think people can solve national security issues with voluntary means. He thinks a government is necessary. It doesn't matter how inexpensive his ideal "army" ( for lack of a better term) would be, Ron Paul wants government to solve that problem. Government = force = violation of the nap = not a principled libertarian.

      This isn't that hard people. Stop making excuses for him.

      I'm not saying you shouldn't like him anymore or that he isn't worthy of respect. Not at all. I admire him tremendously. He can teach us all something.

    7. My view is that Ron Paul is a good man but naive when it comes to government. It's one superstition he has held to like so many others. To paraphrase Ralph Raico, "What more empirical evidence do we need to see that government never stays limited?"

    8. Sloppy thinking there wenzel. Please explain how Ron Paul can be a principled libertarian (not advocating a violation of the nap) while advocating government?

  2. Good points. While I'm tired of idiot socialists spouting the usual BS the love to promote it looks like Sawant has more balls than Rand. But then again, it's VERY easy to promote an ideology that appeals to envy than to self responsibility as libertarianism does. Still Rand is liability not an asset.

  3. Rand Paul lives in the world of the past when his father appeared to be failing to make a difference because his father refused to compromise. Rand Paul doesn't realize that his father was merely laying the foundation for the present when compromise is no longer needed.

  4. Socialists dont have to compromise because with as shallow as our country's knowledge is on economics and freedom, the socialists talking points sound good.

    1. "Socialists don't have to comprise because their twisted ideology appeals to the most base of human emotions: envy. They appeal to the covetousness of others. This shows how weak and feeble minded most people are.