Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dUMJyzjtA
This is a quite libertarian speech. Do you think Rick Perry is better than Mitt Romney or Michel Bachmann? It does seem that is he better.
That’s parallel to saying: “Do you think Hitler is better than Mao and Stalin? He was responsible for killing less people…it does seem that he is better.”
Obviously none of those candidates killed anyone (that we know of…we may find out they drove a woman into a lake and then went home to bed without telling anyone)…but the point remains, this “lesser of the two evils” nonsense is…well…nonsense.
I think Ron Paul is quite correct here when saying that Rick Perry is just another typical status quo Republican, nothing more, nothing less… Republicans can talk all they want about limited government/economic freedom etc… but when push comes to shove, nearly all of them act quite the opposite…
Rick Perry is scary to me. As I’ve observed him, he strikes me as a creep and a narcissistic sociopath. The reason for me thinking that is his political opportunism in addition to his whole Merck scandal that is just an abomination. The corruption of that ordeal made it clear that he was just another narcissistic sociopath.
I just can’t get over his desire to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. I am in fact not a fan of gay marriage - or straight marriage for that matter. The government has no business to be marrying people, straight or gay. Let everyone do as they will, enter voluntary contracts. Homosexuals are shackling themselves to government when they ask for these “rights.” And social conservatives are being idiotic too.
I was amazed that anyone cheered the guy.
Also, was his 2008 endorsement of Obama a joke?
The problem with libertarian politics is that we cannot grasp the concept of incrementalism. Collectivists are quite content with eating away at our freedoms bit by bit, but we are only satisfied with an “all or nothing” approach when it comes to winning them back. This never works. Meanwhile, more of our freedoms are being taken away by the State, and we are powerless because everyone takes a “more libertarian than thou” attitude towards any viable candidate who just might win us back a small portion of our liberties. The “true” libertarians shun movements like Tea Parties and elected officials like Rand Paul for deviating from what is a non-existent party line. Whenever we are handed a majority of votes and candidates that can actually win, we alienate and dismiss them.
It reminds me of another speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY
As I recall, Libertarians in general were disappointed in Reagan. But painful as it might be, he was the most electable candidate at the time, and if he did not manage to restore sound money and put an end to the welfare state as promised, he at least bought us time and a fighting chance-- which we also managed to squander. I don’t like saying it, but should Ron Paul get elected President, we would end up equally disappointed in him.
The fact is that no politician will or can ever live up to what we demand. We are looking for candidates that support libertarian values, but most fail to realize that this will never happen. The collectivists not only have candidates that are more willing to tow their line (what else do you expect from people in politics?), but are willing to throw them away the second they show any backbone of their own. Their representatives stay in office longer because they are willing collaborators, and this is a major disadvantage. They can grind down our liberties at a faster rate than ever before, but when we get the smallest opportunity to start regaining our freedom, we throw it away.
I do not like the idea of picking the lesser of two evils, but we are dealing with government here-- and so there is only evil to choose from. The only thing to do is judge candidates by results and hold them to the vows they take.