In this thread a discussion developed about Ron Paul running 3rd party. I made the argument that the most effective and efficient way to go about having libertarian ideas adopted and implemented is to have an “irate, tireless minority” active in rolling back the institutions of big government. And the fastest way to leverage the knowledge of that minority is to have them active in the public sphere…and finally, the way to have them most efficient and effective in the public sphere is by infiltrating and taking over one of the major parties.
You may achieve government, but at what cost? I understand the value of lesser-government types in government, but unless they’re anarchists they’re disingenuous and fraudulent and that’s not really great. Instead of being successful acitivists for government, let’s be successful at whatever we do and have lots of people in our lives and some kind of status in one way or another to influence people. Activists in government should play a minor role, walking a thin line as they do. Shouldn’t most people who come to anarchism arrive their from the influence of just normal people in their lives?
Plus, I see no reason why that “has” to be the case, and I doubt you could provide a sufficient one.
I’m also really interested to hear a proposal for how government would be more quickly, effectively, and efficiently rolled back with little to no activity to that end taking place inside the government itself.
I thought it was clear that I was asking what possible substance exists in “I prefer the battleground of ideas”. Again, I’m really interested to hear a proposal for how government would be more quickly, effectively, and efficiently rolled back with little to no activity to that end taking place inside the government itself. So wow me any time.
That was not clear to me at all. And I don’t expect you to be wowed by anything I or anyone else could tell you that isn’t in line with your strategy. It’s clear to me that your mind is already hermetically sealed against any alternative approach.
But just for the purposes of full disclosure, by “I prefer the battleground of ideas”, I’m talking about engaging people about ideas outside of electoral politics. Basically, I think the rollback of the state must occur in people’s minds first.
If I say “any alternative approach”, I don’t see the need to provide examples.
Well, I think that, as more people roll back the state in their own minds, the power of the state to enforce its edicts will gradually weaken. Once “enough” people have done this, then I think overt civil disobedience would be in order. (I put “enough” in quotes because I’m honestly not sure how many would be “enough”. Sorry.)
No, it doesn’t. Whether I have an alternative approach (which I think I do, actually) is irrelevant to whether you’ve insulated yourself from any other alternative approach whatsoever.
Then certainly it would be easy for you to point out exactly where you allegedly addressed it.
So I’m just wondering if you were overtly trolling Autolykos because its the weekend and youre bored, or is it actually the case that you cannot fathom the concept of a battleground of ideas? Its praxeologically self-evident, in that people act in order to alleviate felt uneasiness, they must have an idea of what acts would bring about that end. Some ideas are correct and some are incorrect or useless or counterproductive and those ideas can only be removed from circulation by bringing about their replacement with superior ideas.
arent you the guy who says that the great value of Ron Paul’s candidacy is in educating people? Do you have any idea how many people are going to vote in this election still do not know or care about him or the ideas he espouses? Yet, those people pay taxes, they live and preach statist rhetoric in their daily lives, and the majority of them undoubtedly interact with at least one or two libertarians in a given week.
the state is a social fiction. It defies logic that someone necessarily must operate within the fiction in order to reveal its fictional nature.
I wouldn’t say I’m “affirming” the previous points, but I would say offering evidence to support them, as well as simply relaying the news about what’s going on in the United States political world.
As for my previous points, I suppose you could say I’m always looking for counterpoints (which I suppose is why it’s so disappointing to have someone so vehemently oppose the post and yet not offer any. sadface ) But hey, such is the nature of the Internet, no? C’est la vie.
We are looking at this from the sidelines: that is to say, we aren’t really managing and using the hard resources to calculate what needs to be done. i.e: we aren’t the “entrepreurs” in the RP campaign. We can only say and think so much .
The pro’s of what you are saying:
Thus far the better aspects of the tea party, the RP campagin, and anything that is remotely libertarian when dealing with the current political apparatus has worked within or at least semi in tandem with the Republican party. I don’t think this can be disputed. The biggest major exception may very well be the Mises Institute itself.
The Republcan Party as we know it is in disorder, and is probably on it’s last few gasps befoe it has to reconfigure.
If one can work within the Republican Party to achieve success, why not? The system is more set up for the 2 main parties, who have way more resources at their disposal than any other option. If the situation is doable to run Republican one should take the path of least resistince and make their campaign, exposure, and electability that much easier.
It really is asking what would one rather own a $100 bill or a $1 bill
Counter points
a) If Ron Paul doesn’t get the RP nomination: I’m holding off on this response because I don’t know your position as the links are temporarily down
b) When there is political dissention within political parties, third parties have been effective “squeaky wheels”: look at the Populists, Progressives, etc. If there is a strong enough force to create a temprorary fraction when the shit has hit the fan within a party, temporary division seems to be a natural thing in certain circumstances.
Sometimes splits may be inevitable if an idea / goal wants to survive. This may be the best and most feasible time to do it.
c) Ron Paul is probably the greatest thing to happen publicly to the liberterian message. With the political system in turmoil, there is no reason not to treat him and out current circumstances as a unique phenomena without precedence. If the situation allows for him to run a third party with the name “liberterian” on it - that may be the biggest boon liberterians can ask for to create a an unprecedented voice in US politics.
