Granted of course that he runs (and if not Ron Paul, then Gary Johnson). It was rather puzzling in retrospect that Paul only finished 5th in 2008 with 7.6% of the primary vote (McCain won with 37%). Up to that time, I assumed New Hampshire was a very liberal state and figured that’s why McCain appealed to Northeastern Republicans and centrists, but when I learned more about libertarianism after the election I discovered how libertarian the state actually is (and of course the Free State Project and all that jazz).
So I was wondering, if Ron Paul (or Johnson) runs, do they have a legitimate chance to win New Hampshire? Obviously since it is one of the first states to conduct an election, momentum is key. Even if Paul doesn’t do well in Iowa and wins New Hampshire, that will get him the limelight going forward.
I realize Paul doesn’t have a realistic opportunity to win the nomination, but what I’m hoping is that either Republican opponents or a whiny, emotional left-wing media outlet such as MSNBC makes widely known to the public Paul’s connections to Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. Which, in all likelihood, would obliterate his campaign but in the process it would put anarcho-capitalism and Austrian econ front and center in the political sphere. I think it would be great for the movement personally, because even with the shallow derision and “what about the poor” / “who will build the roads”, the movement will get written off by the majority, but as long as we expand the reach I say it’s a positive thing. I assume we will get a number of fans in the process.
The trouble with New Hampshire, and the Free State Project in general, is population flight. The northeastern People’s States have done such horrific damage to their economic and social liberties that the population is emigrating to greener pastures, such as New Hampshire. However, these people bring with them their social democratic politics; and they are moving to NH at a rate which far outstrips the immigration of libertarians to NH. Sadly, libertarians will never have control of any popular government anywhere in any time that is relevant for our concerns. They are more likely to succeed with a military dictatorship than with a democracy.
I think he has said in the past that he would love to see Napolitano nominated to the supreme court. I’m pretty sure Napolitano is an anarchist. I think he said once (not sure if it was in private or public) that all taxes are theft.
You’re very welcome, Brian. As an aside, note the judges statement re: the “lawfulness” of taxes and his contrasting discouraging the resistance of paying them as it would be encouraging criminal behavior. I’d like to hear what his thoughts are on John Hancock’s infamy.
Andrew Napolitano is an anarcho-capitalist. I heard it on John Stossel’s show once and it was the first time I had heard of anarcho-capitalism, thinking it was interesting but insane. He just plays the constitutionalist position now that he’s on FOX.
I think Gary Johnson has the edge over Ron Paul because he’s more moderate, less “loony”, and about 20 years younger. I don’t think Paul has a whole lot of desire for power and he’s not going to downplay his position to avoid being attacked. Johnson probably would, and he is more likely to appeal to traditional Republicans, but conservatives are going to have an issue with his civil libertarianism and Mitt Romney will emerge as the consensus pick being on neither the “extreme conservative” nor the “libertarian” end of the spectrum. Johnson could get support from the younger population, but they’re not the voters.
Ron Paul’s not going to generate his previous following, and that wasn’t nearly enough to get him anything close to a nomination. The guy’s just too extreme and too reality-based, and he speaks out against big government bureaucracies (which conservatives SUPPORT, being “conservative”). They don’t want Obama change and they don’t want Paul change, and we all know that Paul change is more than change in name only. Pretty much every Republican nominee is one Kevin Bacon away from another one (Eisenhower–>Nixon (VP)–>Ford (VP)–>Dole (VP nom), Goldwater–>Reagan (huge supporter)–>Bush Sr. (VP)–>Bush Jr. (son)–>McCain (Bush’s step-cousin-in-law-or-something, Iraq War lover, Goldwater’s senate seat) and Ron Paul is nothing like them.
But here’s the issue: neither are going to get FOX NEWS backing and that is IMPORTANT in Republican elections.
“Rand Paul said that Ron Paul is more likely to campaign for the Texas senate seat instead of the presidential spot…”
Well that’s completely stupid. The whole point of Ron running is to spread the message. I don’t think he actually cares about running or getting elected for Senate.
Time will tell… my money is on Presidential run though. If at all.
Ron Paul is never going to be President - and that’s fine.
More important than him being elected is - Ron Paul spreading his message and increasing his followers. That’s why he should (and hopefully) will run.
Because then maybe, just maybe, one day in the future after the dollar collapse and the BIG financial crisis - maybe a disciple of Ron Paul might be elected. Or at least someone who believes in a lot of his message.
And also - maybe if Ron Paul spreads his message enough - then the rightful blame will be laid upon the size of gov’t when the debt bomb implodes. And perhaps the country will lean in the direction of Ron Paul then. Even if it’s just his ideas and not him, per se.
Wow, that’s one hell of a problem in general for libertarianism! If we ever succeed in creating an anarchic or at least a minarchist spot for ourselves, we’ll indeed be swamped by commies who come for a job. In time, democracy or not, they’ll stage a revolution and institute a social-democracy ala . What to do?
Wow, that’s one hell of a problem in general for libertarianism! If we ever succeed in creating an anarchic or at least a minarchist spot for ourselves, we’ll indeed be swamped by commies who come for a job. In time, democracy or not, they’ll stage a revolution and institute a social-democracy ala Sweden. What to do?
Realistically you can acknowledge that, in a world full of Nazis and Commies, your project is hopeless.
Presuming you ever established AnCapistan you could just go with Hoppe’s suggestion and make it a restrictive covenant: if you advocate democracy, communism, welfare, etc. you’re deported.
I’m afraid that’s not how revolutions work. They are not planned, they erupt. You can deport revolutionaries, but the masses that linger through without any ideology in they day-to-day lives can suddenly come alive and demand benefits or some other socialist fable with no warning or indeed reason. So, how to prevent tenants from overthrowing the landlord and stealing his land? The more successful the landlord is as an entrepreneur, the more tenants he’ll have, and the harder it will be for his to repel any attack form them.
here I disagree. Hong Kong was surrounded by commies and yet flourished. If one can get enough like-minded people in one area, establishing a libertarian society is feasible. keeping it that way is the hard part.
here I disagree. Hong Kong was surrounded by commies and yet flourished. If one can get enough like-minded people in one area, establishing a libertarian society is feasible. keeping it that way is the hard part.
This is a false view of Hong Kong. The people in Hong Kong are not libertarian, they’re social democrats. According to many polls and questionairres they are more in favor of welfare and less optimistic about the market than the mainland Chinese. But even that is beside the point. Hong Kong’s economic liberalism had nothing to do with the opinions of the HK people. It was pragmatic considerations such as its inability to support itself, then need of the British for a free-port in the region and the general neglect of the UK towards the island that made it so economically liberal. If you want to give anyone credit for Hong Kong’s relatively laissez-faire economy, give it to Sir Robert Brown Black; a governor of the colony. This is a horribly chosen example, the people of Hong Kong have and still have negligible power over government and the practical issues of feeding them create a strong pressure away from strong interventionism in the economy. The same is true of Singapore, the People’s Action Party is literally a fascist party.
Hong Kong started out with a monopoly on all land, and the land was distributed by the government to its close friends, who became rich quite quickly. On top of which, its government has given special subsidies to its hotels, has bailed out its banks, has controlled private rental housing and diverted people to public housing.
We need much higher standards than Hong Kong, and I can’t imagine a person of any persuasion, liberal or otherwise, supporting its cronyism.
You are right, HK’s success is not due to the ideology of the people. Still, the fact is that HK too is sliding towards statism with government expenditure rising, slowly but certainly, form year to year. So, none of the considerations that made HK liberal once suffice to arrest its slide towards statism.
You are right on all counts, but note above I said relatively laissez-faire. Cronyism and government are, well, identical. Given that HK is not anarchist, though, it is pretty economically free.