So, basically, you are calling him a sell-out without reason.
Well, I’m assuming he believes what libertarians believe about politics and aggression and taxes and regulation and ruling over people and so forth. I’ve heard he’s supposed to be libertarian. Maybe I’m mistaken.
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.
If Ron Paul can change public opinion (which I doubt), it’s a whole nother ball game (although even if he does he still will be no different than any other guy as prez–the praxeolgoy is still the praxeology). But given current public opinion, he’d be another BushObama.
Anyway, I seriously doubt that he’s ever stopped any tax increases or big spending increases. It’s easy to maintain your principles if you lack power. Which is my point.
What about the Austrian affection for Ludwig von Mises and the Communist worship of Karl Marx? Is there a difference?
Depends. Are we talking about serious intellectuals or the masses?
What would cause him to be another BushObama? Are you talking about public pressure for interventionism? I certainly don’t think he’d even be allowed to excercise anything extremely libertarian because of Congress, but I don’t think the man would cave in and go to war with North Korea or sign some huge spending bill. Of course he would be facing both sides of the media . . .
And not to appeal to authority here, but I know Walter Block said he would trust Ron Paul as President. I know he’s anti-voting and wouldn’t personally act as a politician, but he’s confident enough in Paul that he thinks he’d be better than anyone else who would potentially run.
Well both libertarians and Communists are generally of higher intelligence in societies where neither are the prevailling opinion. But on this site it’s safe to say Ron Paul supporters tend more toward the intellectuals than the masses.
Well, I’m assuming he believes what libertarians believe about politics and aggression and taxes and regulation and ruling over people and so forth. I’ve heard he’s supposed to be libertarian. Maybe I’m mistaken.
I don’t really know what that means, but libertarians disagree considerably about politics and “aggression” and therefore taxes and regulations. As well they disagree about tactics and strategies. Most “libertarians” are even on the minarchist side of the coin.
I know, but it’s a fair question that we must ask ourselves throughout life. Otherwise, we betray our ability as human beings, and all that this implies, to give meaning to intellectual honesty, integrity and discovery.
I too am curious about Ron Paul’s actual accomplishments. I’m also trying to figure out how Ron Paul could single handedly change the entire political system/incentive structure. Coase’s argument makes a lot of sense. Ron Paul is to libertarianism (some libertarians) what Obama was for modern Liberalism, a potential messiah who could bring about real change. But Obama, like every other politician, is constrained by special interests.
Obama and Ron Paul are on entirely different sides of the spectrum, both of which are quite far from the establishment (the center). If Obama could, he would nationalize the entire financial sector, set price floors in the labor market, and increase corporate and marginal tax rates to levels unseen since the great depression. The point is that he doesn’t have the power to do this; as a politician, he is bound by special interests and, to some degree, the majority. It’s not because he’s spineless; it’s because he doesn’t want a revolution.
Ron Paul would be bound by the very same constraints, but from the other side of the political spectrum, and by other special interests groups. The only way to have real and fundamental change is to change people’s opinions; we have to win the battle of ideas. Putting a libertarian in charge of this current system won’t do anything but discredit that libertarian (like Regan), and or discredit libertarianism altogether.
Esuric, Speaking only for myself, I do not disagree with what Coase or you are saying in regards to 1) Ron Paul’s ability to single-handedly change the system. I will openly admit that he cannot and I am quite certain he is also acutely aware of this fact. As you have correctly pointed out he can be (and has been) an agent for change through the acceptance of an idea to those who truly desire peace and prosperity. An idea that has many tangible benefits for all of society not just here in the U.S. but worldwide and 2) I do not disagree with the statement that both Ron Paul and Obama are looked to (at least Obama was) as potential leaders who could bring about real change. However, those libertarians who understand Ron Paul’s philosophy know that Ron Paul himself does not seek self-serving means or ends and this fact alone is a crucial difference. He does not see himself as a Messiah whereas Obama clearly does. Thus the potential for Ron Paul to effect real change is immeasurably greater. He knows where the line of demarcation is and where his rightful authority ends. This can be said of precious few people. In short, I do see the point Coase and yourself are making, but one must look beyond the political to the men themselves to see the answer.
Having said this, here are just a few of the things I can think of that Ron Paul has accomplished. Try not to dismiss them too quickly without thinking through both the primary and secondary effects of such things (which I don’t really believe that you will). I am not going to attempt to list his Congressional voting record. It is accessible for all to see and it is impeccable and speaks volumes for itself as to the kind of man he is. 1) He has consistently warned of the inherent dangers of the Federal Reserve banking system and our (the U.S.‘s) leaving the gold standard. 2) He has consistently warned of the dangers of interventionist foreign policy and the true costs of war in general. 3) He has consistently possessed the heart and mind of a servant. He has always looked out for ALL Americans’ interests and not his own or just those of his constituents back home in Texas. This “servant” mentality also benefits society worldwide also. 4) He has led an exemplary life in the realm of morals and ethics and he has never been part of a scandal in his personal or professional life. 5) He has never sought out or pandered to special interests for ill-gotten political and/or financial gain. 6) He has influenced untold numbers of people worldwide for the good and he has done it all sometimes at great personal expense, under enormous pressures and/or when some of these things were not the “in” thing to be discussing, all the while being mocked, chided, scorned and scoffed. And you know what? He has done it all with tremendous grace, real humility, charm and wit. All things considered, doing this for 30 years could not have been easy or pleasant, but he has done it. I rarely say such things about people, but his is a life worth emulating.
Esuric, What I meant here was that I do not believe you will dismiss them out of hand and not think through them. I did not mean that I did not believe you wouldn’t think through them at all. Sorry for the potential miscommunication.
Case probability is a particular feature of our dealing with problems of human action. Here any reference to frequency is inappropriate, as our statements always deal with unique events which as such?–i.e., with regard to the problem in question?–are not members of any class. We can form a class “American presidential elections.” This class concept may prove useful or even necessary for various kinds of reasoning, as, for instance, for a treatment of the matter from the viewpoint of constitutional law. But if we are dealing with the election of 1944?–either, before the election, with its future outcome or, after the election, with an analysis of the factors which determined the outcome?–we are grappling with an individual, unique, and nonrepeatable case. The case is characterized by its unique merits, it is a class by itself. All the marks which make it permissible to subsume it under any class are irrelevant for the problem in question.
…
On the eve of the 1944 presidential election people could have said:
(a) I am ready to bet three dollars against one that Roosevelt will be elected.
(b) I guess that out of the total amount of electors 45 millions will exercise their franchise, 25 millions of whom will vote for Roosevelt.
(c) I estimate Roosevelt’s chances as 9 to 1.
(d) I am certain that Roosevelt will be elected. [p. 114]
Statement (d) is obviously inexact. If asked under oath on the witness stand whether he is as certain about Roosevelt’s future victory as about the fact that a block of ice will melt when exposed to a temperature of 150 degrees, our man would have answered no. He would have rectified his statement and would have declared: I am personally fully convinced that Roosevelt will carry on. That is my opinion. But, of course, this is not certainty, only the way I understand the conditions involved.
The case of statement (a) is similar. This man believed that he risked very little when laying such a wager. The relation 3:1 is the outcome of the interplay of two factors: the opinion that Roosevelt will be elected and the man’s propensity for betting.
Statement (b) is an evaluation of the outcome of the impending event. Its figures refer not to a greater or smaller degree of probability, but to the expected result of the voting. Such a statement may be based on a systematic investigation like the Gallup poll or simply on estimates.
It is different with statement (c). This is a proposition about the expected outcome couched in arithmetical terms. It certainly does not mean that out of ten cases of the same type nine are favorable for Roosevelt and one unfavorable. It cannot have any reference to class probability. But what else can it mean?
Let Ron Paul be the single greatest man who has ever lived. Let him be an angel. He still has to pander to the public and the special interest groups or else relinquish all power. It’s politics.
I believe it would be more accurate to say that he respects where the lines of demarcations are in regards to the will of others in the first case and I am unaware of Ron Paul EVER pandering to special interests in the second, but otherwise I don’t disagree. Having said that, if the U.S. had 500 more people like him in the District of Corruption, I doubt we would even be having this conversation. May I suggest Coase that you learn a little more about Ron Paul’s philosophy. I believe it may be very helpful to you.
I think Ron Paul was on the train when it left the station. Unlike a lot of Tea party people who jumped on as the train left the station.I think Ron Paul will live or die politically with his principals intact. Just ask yourself what would you do if you were president? If you would sell out your Austrian. Libertarian.Anarcho Capitalist ideals…join the Tea Party, if not VOTE FOR RON PAUL.
Just ask yourself what would you do if you were president? If you would sell out your Austrian. Libertarian.Anarcho Capitalist ideals…join the Tea Party, if not VOTE FOR RON PAUL.
Or you could just not waste your time and stay home making lunch or something.