Has anybody read "How (Not) to Achieve Freedom" by Stefan Molyneux

I apologize to Ron Paul supporters and I take back what I’ve said here about his fundamentalism.

What remains, though, 1) is that if he wins, 2) libertarianism in the will take a heavy hit and 3) this is not the bets way for him to use his finite resources (political credibility).

I apologize to Ron Paul supporters and I take back what I’ve said here about his fundamentalism.

What remains, though, 1) is that if he wins, 2) libertarianism in the will take a heavy hit and 3) this is not the bets way for him to use his finite resources (political credibility).

1 – can he win?

When Thatcher (I take her instead of Regan as he didn’t really do anything, unlike Thatcher who made a very few advancements) spoke of denationalizing coal pits, or stop fixing coal prices etc. the whole of England was paralyzed for a hundred+ days riot (one such riot had brought down the previous Heath government). Thatcher was able to pull that off only because she rode on the wave of “Empire Strikes back” on the Falkalnds. Will RP have such an option?

But if he indeed will invite massive riots (see below), that form the point of view of the state, would it be so bad to have him in? The grand Prophets of the State, Krugman holds that Volcker tok a monetarist course in the ’80 only to discredit monetarism forever (success!). So, it would not be the first time that the state makes ample concession in massively important fields only to manipulate its opponents. So, if I was some wily republican, I’d actually back Ron Paul and see him fail abysmally. At least, I would do that under some circumstances.

So, if Obama’s popularity sinks lower, if unemployment rages on, if the afghani kick even more American ass, there just could be a large minority of republican that will be attracted to RP as their “last hope”. So, you either try to stifle that, only to have libertarians criticize your every movement in the future, or actually get him into power (do not oppose him) and see him fail. So, if Ron Paul manages a good nomination campaign, I say he has a good chance of wining.

Don’t forget, a day before the Russian revolution, Bolsheviks where laughed at in . Things can change very quickly and one must bee prepared for that. “It will never happen” just wont do.

2 – will he destroy libertarianism?

Suppose he resigns after being elected (I’m assuming he won’t resign earlier). People ‘boo’ him for life. I myself would think ‘This guy was so much ‘do this, and do that, and you got this wrong’, and he now walks away? Who’s he kidding with?” its easy to se that much, much, fewer people would keep reding LRC or LvMi, and libertarianism would plunge back to the level of public appreciation it had in the ’50.

Suppose he accept but limits himself to veto every bill he gets. People will say, just as much, “well do you have a better idea? Health Care is a mess, what will you do about it? Medicare will be unfundable in 10 years, hat will you do about it?” If RP does nothing, he’s discredited, and us long with him.

Suppose some of his measures are put to practice. He deregulates the medical profession. The medics, having spend millions of dollars in education, bribery and opportunity costs of years gone, would never accept cheaper competition now. They’ll sit outside hospitals until the bill dies. Who shall cure non-mortal cases?

Yes, he could try to explain the situation, but “while the president talks, my heart is failing! Get that law out of the way!”. One seriously overestimate the average voter in expecting them to chose calm reason in such a scenario (half the people here would back down, I’m afraid). Its easy to see that people’s riot could begin in some cities. I witnessed this in my own university; a protracted professors sit-out caused a student riot directed to the state and backing the professor’s claim for higher pay. “Just get school to begin, we don’t give a shit!” And it was an economics faculty, mind you. Its ugly.

Now, he either holds on, and congress puts up with this no more (and libertarians are discredited as spineless hypocrites), or he gives in (inactivity as above, for the rest of his term) or he uses force. I don’t even want to think about that last option, even if it would be easy to bribe some police chief to have some violence on medics and blame the president. It’s a very, very difficult trap to get out form and we’re walking right in.

I see no way in which RP could walkout in 2016 with more than handful of people still reading LvMI articles.

3- he could be ‘used’ much, much better

See my local politics post above.

That’s not an apology, because he isn’t a fundamentalist. An apology would be taking back what you said, by associating him with fundamentalism.

Win the nomination? Not likely. Presidency? Not a chance in hell. Does that change anything? Nope.

Comparing Thatcher & Reagan to Ron Paul, fails remarkably on so many levels. What an insult. You don’t think he has principles?

In case you didn’t realise, he’s the anti-establishment, anti-status quo congressman.

Again, no reasoning behind this what so ever.

Success? Haha.

You’re going to need to do better than the above, if you’re trying to present some kind of credible example.

I bet you would. Congratulations, the left sectarian certificate is in the mail.

All of the above will happen to Obama. Not that it means anything for RP. Try to stiffle what? Ron Paul spreading the message of Liberty? Really? /facepalm.

“(Do not oppose him)” doesn’t automatically translate into “get him into power”. Massive non sequitur.

I say Ron manages to get nominated, then the republican party splits - a 3rd (tea party movement is formed), guided by Beck and Faux News - in order to split the vote, keep Ron Paul out. Nothing brings the vultures together in bi-partisanship more so, when both their jobs are on the line from a legit - anti-establishment, anti-status quo candidate. Your power elite analysis is non existent. Did you even watch the Ron Paul 2008 campaign?

World wide media blackout… hello?

If anyone is a fundamentalist, it’s you. You just re-hashed the arguments you made earlier, and basically ignored my whole post. I’m done with you on this. Not worth my time.

Fine than, let’s hope you’re right and he doesn’t win.

That’s what I meant.

No, lets hope he does. Because his goal (end) is spreading the message & educating others. That’s how success is defined. (How I Won in the Election - John Sophocleus)

Daily Bell: What is the future of the Ron Paul freedom movement in your view?

Rockwell: This much is clear: the Paul movement has made a huge difference in bringing people to libertarian ideas. In some way, there is an element of tragedy in that it takes politics to wake people up. Ideally, people would discover the ideas of liberty through other means.

Ron Paul agrees with this observation, by the way. He sees himself as an educator first. He chose politics because, for him, it was an effective route for his larger and more important goal. And what an extraordinary job he has done, in his writing and speaking and personal example for almost four decades. He has brought vast numbers of people into the light. That was always his dream. I should add that his early support was very important in the Mises Institute’s success. We are honored to have him as our distinguished counselor.

Daily Bell: Will your educational organizations become more involved in political efforts or not?

Rockwell: I would say no to that. Unless you are Ron Paul, politics is a dangerous business that tempts people to say and do crazy things. Success is fleeting, whereas we are in this for the long term.

What has to be understood isn’t how to get people elected, but how to get the people that have the clout to get folks elected to actually focus on the real deal of getting things changed. Using the political mechanisms aren’t the best option, nor are the changes under the political mechanisms permanent. If they were, we wouldn’t have such a Leviathan in our midst. That is what I take from Stefbot’s point, but I do agree that his need for positivism is idiotic, beyond that it’s a good strategy to focus on the actual everyday stuff than worry about what the morons on Capital Hill have to say.