That doesn’t even seem close to the truth.
I’ve never read anything by Ron Paul that would suggest he even comes to the barline of a voluntary society.
I awknowledge that, but he’s not arguing the position of the republican party in his speeches. The whole idea of a party is that there’s some platform of Ideals attached to it. Ron Paul doesn’t entertain those ideals.
I would concede the point that Ron Paul was putting on a show, being a political impostor, to get elected by the republican party if he was arguing points that might get him nominated, however he isn’t, so the positions he’s taking and words he’s using aren’t fake.
If, indeed, he was trying to get elected by the republican party to enact some secret plan of his, It seems to me that he should be arguing the neo-facist warmongering position of his colleagues. Then he could enact his libertarian plan of dismanteling the state until it ultimately failed on contention that some notion of “checks and ballences” is supposed to negate tyranny, and thus the actions of negating the state should be the joint operation of all three Branches of the government in order to be “just”. I’d understand that. But the position he is arguing is not republican, it’s paleoconservative, old right, nativist, Birchian propaganda, and he’s been rejected by the majority of the republican party. This leads me to believe that the intent behind his words is not to uphold some republican ideal, they are entirely his own.
Now I’m sure he would be a better president than many of the other options, just like you might say the slave master who whips his slaves 19 times is better than the one who whips his 20. But the master who says he’ll whip you less is not arguing for your freedom, nor is Ron Paul. And if he’s not some concealed charlatan positing a belief that will get him elected, I cant help but believe the ideas he has spoken are genuine.
RP jumped the shark. Yes, nowadays, I refer to him merley as an old “meme”, because that’s all thats essentially amounted by his campaign.
Honestly, I see more parallels between Ron Paul & The Laughing Man (Ghost in The Shell: Stand Alone Complex), than RP & any meaningful change.
Exactly - though the mini-statists and reformists will just say, “oh he’s just preaching to the audience,” however, that particular argument seems to be used only when it fits in with the reformist argument. I.e. if that little piece of paper with words on it meant that much to the Republicans, it seems that it wouldn’t really be necessary to bring it up - they would follow it because it’s important.
It’s quite clear that Ron Paul actually believes that the US Constitution is a legitimate form of authority and that people should be beaten or even murdered if they don’t pay the US Congress’ taxes, duties, excises, and tariffs.
Negative proof is the basis of your argument?
What’s so hideous about expecting someone to learn the language in which they find themselves immersed? If I move to Mexico or France, I would learn as much Spanish or French as I could, just for quality of life. It’s this expectation to cater to the needs of every “disadvantaged” minority that has allowed the state you so abhor to swell to it’s current Leviathan size.
Name calling is usually the last recourse of an immature mind.
Who said he was trying to get elected? This is the false premise I see bandied about here frequently. RP was never trying to get elected, he was never trying to win.
He was undermining and attacking the political process through the opportunities given to him.
The issue I am developing with many on this forum, is a form of extremism, that requires everything to be theoretically correct, with zero concern for practicality or progress. We talk about how in a free market, X would emerge, and Y would become available, as though there is a process, and yet in each thread where someone questions the actual process to anarchy, the answer is always, “well, political change doesn’t work because it hasn’t”, which in my opinion, is a non-answer.
The hostility to Ron Paul is counter-productive. I believe Rothbard understood this, which is why Rothbard rejected Agorism.
If you believe everything he says is genuine, then you’re sadly mislead, and I doubt you have paid much attention.
Paul is the match. He only burns for a short time. But he’s started a brushfire. Do you think it is only coincidence that Lew Rockwell is importantly positioned at Mises, and backs Paul? Or that Rothbard was Paul’s economic advisor in 1988? Maybe Paul isn’t “your kind” of libertarian, but he’s certainly doing as much as anyone to advance libertarian ideals. Because it’s not a switch you can flip, from statism to libertarianism. Many people come around to changing their thinking gradually. And a paraqdim shift will have to occur in the mass conciousness if you ever hope to see anarchy, It’s people like Ron Paul that are creating the dialog that can bring part of the shift.
By what standard are you judging him? Do you realize how many votes he has gotten? Or have you read his new book, and seen that it will be #1 on the NYT Best Seller list?
His supporters are causing chaos in the Republican party, fighting the state throgh infiltration and disruption in a significant way.
Again, he’s the match. He starts the brushfire. You’re not alone. You have an opportunity to recruit RPers deeper into libertarianism. Will you do it? Or will you let the opportunity for your action to pass, and then claim that his campaign amounted to nothing?
The responsibility for squandering any momentum he has created, is born by all of us. Not him.
The more I read from Paul’s critics (particularly you), the more I realize, that many of you haven’t been paying attention to what he is doing or saying. Many seem to have preconceived ideas of what his goals and tactics are.
You couldn’t be more wrong in my opinion.
I sometimes wonder if it is easier to attack “traitors” or to request a “purge” of “parlour revolutionaries” than to accomplish something meaningful that advances the cause of liberty. Perhaps it’s the problem man has faced since the beginning of time. The sheer size of a challenge eclipses the scope of our ability to plan an attack.
To use a football analogy (that works for the CFL as well as the NFL, although perhaps better for the CFL), Paul is trying to get the liberty ball on the 2 yard line. It will be someone else’s job to pick up the ball and punch it in for the touchdown.
For a good argument of this check out Malcom Gladwell’s Tipping Point. It analyses trends and how they get started. The point is that people are talking about this which does more to change things than anything else.
Pandering do peoples baser emotions is not a good way to make an argument stick. If, for example, you’d asked a Roman circa AD 40-AD 200 if they lived in the SPQR, they would have said yes. It wasn’t until the Imperator became the Emperor and embraced total power that the last vestiges of the Republic died out. Even in the colonial era, the march towards a break with England took a bit of time. We have had over a century of this collectivist crap shoved down our throats and an empire erected where there used to be a republic. To expect people to do a complete about face is unrealistic. Good ideas need time to weed out bad ideas. It may not be orthodox Libertarianism, but look at what happens to good ideas when they become dogmatic.
Rothbard described it perfectly in Toward a Theory of Strategy for Liberty:
Citizens influencing their government is a social force.
If the federal courts refuse to abide by the Constitution, the Congress should emply this constitutional remedy. By a simple majority, Congress could trip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning the obviously unconstitional Roe. At that point, the issue would revert to the states, where it constitutionally belongs, since no appeal to federal courts on the matter could be heard. (I have proposed exactly this in H.R. 300.)
Let us remember, though, that the law can only do so much. The law isnt what allowed abortion; abortions were already being done in the 1960s against the law. The courts came along and conformed to the social and moral changes that were taking place in society. Law reflects the morality of the people. Ultimately, law or no law, it is going to be up to us as parents, as clergy, and as citizens -in the way we raise our children, how we interact and talk with our friends and neighbors, and the good example we give- to bring about changes to our culture toward the greater respect for life.
The quote you have there, is not from me. I think it is from banned.
I’m not sure what that had to do with it… But ok. Paul believes parents have an ability to influence their children not to abort… Am I missing something?
The second paragraph from Rothbard hurts my eyes and my brain. I have read it several times, and can’t comprehend it. Maybe I should try again tomorrow.
I know Rothbard and other intellectuals mean well, and are showing off their skill with language, but it’s almost impossible to read this stuff. Like porn for eggheads, no wonder the average blue jeans, baseball and beer citizen doesn’t get this stuff. There has to be a way to say smart things without sounding pretentious and creating needless difficulty with comprehension.
What do you mean by, “negative proof”? As far as I remember, Paul advocates the constitution, not libertarianism. The two are not the same, never were, never will be.
In 1997 Ron Paul voted for vouchers, that is, giving tax money to government prefered private schools. He voted against decreasing gun waiting periods from 3 days to 1. He voted to build a Berlin wall across the Southern-US border. In 2001 he actually voted to continue banning people from travelling to Cuba.
Now, all of these issues are pretty inconsequential, which is why I chose them. If Ron Paul were TRULY a Libertarian, then wouldn’t he vote Libertarian on all issues, especially the ones that don’t mean so much? Perhaps reformist measures could be appeased in larger issues, but when it comes to things like voting no on removing subsidies for oil and gas exploration (2007), I think you get the bigger picture…
[^o)]
What’s so hideous is that there’s no moral obligation to do so, yet you are still punishing them for not following your demands.
My grandfather lives in an area where most people speak either Italian, Spanish, or English. He has never needed to learn English, nor has he had the desire to. He’s a sweet, old man who likes to work on his olive trees - that’s all. He lives a simple life and doesn’t have the need to learn English, so he has never given it the time - personally, I don’t blame him, it is a rather boorish tongue.
In any case, communicating and “representing” different lingual groups cannot possibly be said to swell the state other than in the role of hiring more translators - oohhhh… scary, you might have to give Ron Paul an additional pay-cut.
I hate this attitude. No. I will use ad-homs whenever I feel they are necessary. They add spice and venom to a discussion.
His goals and tactics are quite apparent. He wants to go back to a nostalgic age where the Constitution reigns supreme - perhaps minus the slavery, perhaps not, no one knows what the “TRUE” Ron Paul feels, right?
Something meaningful to accomplish the cause of liberty? What? Ron Paul’s tactics have been employed since the beginning of the libertarian movement. Where have they gotten you? Where are you today? Oh… Wait, they did repeal the Corn Laws after the riots though…
As far as your football analogy. Ron Paul will get you to the two yard line, unfortunately though, he will do it while fatiguing the rest of the team.