I will admit to not knowing much about him. Ron Paul’s accomplishments include…?
And whatever they are, they excuse the fact that he’s a criminal because…?
Not, of course, that his track record matters. The praxeology of politics is not subject to empirical verification. The a priori logic of human action implies that Ron Paul will be a tyrant as President like all those before him.
'Nuff said.
An assertion without substance. Now I really feel like I’m arguing with liberals about Obama.
Your response is an attempt at a cop-out. Ron Paul arguably has more integrity than anyone who has ever held office, and he has done this for 30 years with the utmost consistency as anyone who has bothered to look at the facts with an open mind can see. And what exactly is this criminal activity he is involved in? This truly would be news to many, including Ron Paul himself, I am sure.
Ron Paul’s main accomplishment is his movement. The Ron Paul R(elov)ution.
And yes, it has not produced anything tangible yet (except for small things like watered down Audit the Fed) - but who knows where it will lead. If not Ron Paul as President, one day one of his disciples might be elected. Someone who supports a lot of his ideas. Then that’s his accomplishment.
Plus - Ron Paul has also accomplishment a huge sway in public backlash against Bernanke and the Fed. If not for Paul, the blame when the dollar collapses might not stick to Bernanke. And that might prevent change post- dollar collapse.
So, really, as a Congressman - he has accomplish a helluva lot. And it might continue to pay dividends in the future.
Your response is an attempt at a cop-out. Ron Paul arguably has more integrity than anyone who has ever held office, and he has done this for 30 years with the utmost consistency as anyone who has bothered to look at the facts with an open mind can see. And what exactly is this criminal activity he is involved in? This truly would be news to many, including Ron Paul himself, I am sure.
A cop-out? You dismissed me. I attempted to associate you with a group of people you probably find distasteful in order to incite a real response (which I have yet to receive–again, what has Ron Paul accomplished?). You, if anything, are copping out.
If Ron Paul has been consistent, it is because he has accomplished nothing–he lacks power.
Ron Paul is a criminal because he is a politician and all politicians are criminals–they rob people. It’s called taxation.
TheNcredibleEgg,
So…he hasn’t actually actually done anything yet? Somehow I can’t see public distrust of Bernanke leading to a free market in money. They all hate Greenspan, but instead of blaming the Fed, they blamed the boss, as if electing the right Fed chairman would solve the problem. Kind of like how some libertarians think electing a libertarian president will solve anything.
You are correct. I did and I am because you are being obstinate (and I think you know that you are). I am not obligated to engage you in this, nor will I. Frankly, I don’t care what you believe about me. The best advice I can offer you is to read, watch and listen. As it stands, you have openly admitted you have not even done this and therefore lack any credible argument against him or his accomplishments. This is the first step toward a more full-orbed perspective on Ron Paul not only as a true PUBLIC SERVANT (as opposed to a mere, despicable politician), but as a man.
A response I’d expect from a defender of Bush or Obama when out of arguments.
Which, obviously, is the real point I’m trying to make. I don’t care one way or the other about Ron Paul. It’s the reasons for supporting him that bother me. Libertarians should know better.
I’d be happy to have a debate with a Ron Paul supporter who’s willing to offer real arguments.
Yeah–he’s a politician. He lives by robbing others. He uses force to make people do things they don’t want to do. Being President of the United States would make him Head Honcho of the biggest criminal gang in history.
How does/would that make him a sell-out?
I don’t think Ron Paul really wants to be president. I think his main goal was to spread a message and open the minds of many Americans.
In the end if people still vote because they expect a president to “nanny” them, then all this is useless. If you look at Ron Paul, he barely if not never makes any promises. All he does is point out things. I don’t think I’ve heard Ron Paul say " If I become President, I will change…", maybe he said it a few times, but nothing like the Democrat and Republican candidates.
I don’t think he cares too much on whether he gets elected or not.
Actually, if I remember the US political system correctly, Ron Paul could ram through all sorts of things with Executive Orders (at the very least, the Fed could be abolished in that manner). Mind, he wouldn’t like to do that (he REALLY hates Executive Orders), but he COULD, which makes all the difference.
At any rate, being elected president would give Libertarianism viability on the grand scale. Also, Ron Paul could veto anything he didn’t like, which could basically equate to a complete freeze on all spending. It would stop us from being ignored (we aren’t as ignored as we used to be, but these days it seems like the so-called “Conservatives” like Palin and Huckabee are the controlled opposition).
Also, don’t defame Ron Paul because he is a politician. He is much better than that, or we wouldn’t support him.
Praxiology says absolutely nothing about whether or not a president will be a tyrant. If Ron Paul values deconstructing government’s power more than the money, fame, or power he could gain by becomeing a tyrant, then that is what praxiology predicts he will do. I’m not saying he does or doesn’t, but the statement about the praxiology of politics is not true.
Well said.
How does/would that make him a sell-out?
He abandons the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership, etc. in favor of living off of other people’s produce.
1) I would argue that track record does matter, especially one as impeccable and lengthy as 30 years. What good sound reason(s) can one possibly have for denying the legitimacy of this as acceptable critieria? I am also wondering whether you would hold to this view if you found out you were being passed over for a job promotion (assuming of course that you had an impeccable track record and remarkable consistency prior to this unwelcome news? Would you simply sigh and say “Oh well, track record really doesn’t matter anyway”. I understand.)? 2) Please define empirical verification as you are using it here. 3) Aren’t you assuming that Ron Paul views the office and role of President and that of the state like all those before him? If he doesn’t, is it not possible that he may not be the tyrant you believe?
Joking. Praxeology. It’s hilarious.
It has nothing to do with Ron Paul. He’s irrelevant. It has to do with power and consequences. Those are the same, so Ron Paul will be the same.
Actually, if I remember the US political system correctly, Ron Paul could ram through all sorts of things with Executive Orders (at the very least, the Fed could be abolished in that manner). Mind, he wouldn’t like to do that (he REALLY hates Executive Orders), but he COULD, which makes all the difference.
At any rate, being elected president would give Libertarianism viability on the grand scale. Also, Ron Paul could veto anything he didn’t like, which could basically equate to a complete freeze on all spending. It would stop us from being ignored (we aren’t as ignored as we used to be, but these days it seems like the so-called “Conservatives” like Palin and Huckabee are the controlled opposition).
Politicians have some slack, but if they go against public opinion too much, their power will be taken from them.
Also, don’t defame Ron Paul because he is a politician. He is much better than that, or we wouldn’t support him.
Liberals and conservatives believe the same thing about their political heroes.
Praxiology says absolutely nothing about whether or not a president will be a tyrant. If Ron Paul values deconstructing government’s power more than the money, fame, or power he could gain by becomeing a tyrant, then that is what praxiology predicts he will do. I’m not saying he does or doesn’t, but the statement about the praxiology of politics is not true.
What Ron Paul values doesn’t matter. The undeniable logic of human action relative to politics guarantees he will either have his principles or his power. There is a trade-off, and a steep one at that.
He abandons the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership, etc. in favor of living off of other people’s produce.
When did he adopt them exactly? Hes a politician now.
Dunno. Some libertarians think he’s swell. Trying to persuade them.
Dunno. Some libertarians think he’s swell. Trying to persuade them.
So, basically, you are calling him a sell-out without reason.
In regards to the title, Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll with 30%.
Okay, he’s never voted to raise taxes and doesn’t vote for any big spending increases. He has more of a force against government than any anarchist. If you pay taxes and/or use any public roads, schools, or services you’re contributing more to government than Ron Paul because he’s generated force against government.
What about the Austrian affection for Ludwig von Mises and the Communist worship of Karl Marx? Is there a difference?