I’m pretty sure Ron Paul would give up his position of power if he were the last person standing in the way of complete freedom. There have been few politicians (if any) more honest than he has been during his career. He’s fighting the good fight in Washington, and we need to support him for that.
Give up what power exactly?
lol…
It sounded like you were saying that Ron Paul would never transition to a capitalist system and that he’s somehow a part of the socialist American state. If Ron Paul weren’t in Washington to fight for capitalism, the system might be even more socialistic than it already is. I’m sure he’d rather be working as a physician still rather than having the stress of being the backbone of the conservative sect of Congress.
How do the people opposing transition propose people go from statist → voluntaryist?
Is truth evolution of belief?
Not that only he read Block’s books, but Walter Block is also his advicer. Ron Paul is Frederik Bastiat of our days:).
Not that only he read Block’s books, but Walter Block is also his advicer. Ron Paul is Frederik Bastiat of our days:).
You mean an overeducated politician who is deluded enough to believe that popular government is workable and that gigantic tyrannical states can be salvaged?
your use of ‘overeducated’ has so distracted me from all else you have said that I just have to boggle.
overeducated ?
overeducated ?
Someone who uses doctrines as a replacement for reason. The Pauline church and Bastiat both had delusions about being able to ‘save’ the government, based on some mix of populist and people’s-state fallacies. A republic is even more difficult to ‘rescue’ than some petty despotism.
Ron Paul is not a republican any more than Hoppe is a monarchist… they are both anarcho-capitalist… but you will argue… so…ok.
thanks for explaining overeducated.
“You mean an overeducated politician who is deluded enough to believe that popular government is workable and that gigantic tyrannical states can be salvaged?”
Back your claim up. Oh wait, you can’t.
He’s the lesser of two evils. A minarchist state is better than a socialist state.
Like Belial is better than Satan? I don’t make deals with the devil, any of them.
It’s easy to talk big on the internet.
It’s just as easy not to propagandize for professional gangsters and their managers.
Not to disrespect, but he’s done way more for libertarianism and anarchy than you have Carlyle.
Not to disrespect, but he’s done way more for libertarianism and anarchy then you have Carlyle.
The very point of my contention is that he has not. People just keep asserting he has. I say he’s tainted it, misrepresented it, done absolutely nothing useful at his job, attracted unlibertarian factors and promoted anti-lbertarian ideas and attracted people to the useless and pernicious realm of political activism. He has deliberately bought votes with pork barrel schemes and diverted tax payer money into politically connected interests in his district.
I don’t claim to have revolutionized social institutions, I don’t even pretend to have made a marginal difference. What I reject is that a career politician ever has.
But he’s been the path to it. Tell me how one cannot read Ayn Rand then progress to Rothbard. People tend to take small, not big steps to an ideology.
But he’s been the path to it. Tell me how one cannot read Ayn Rand then progress to Rothbard. You have to take small, not big steps to an ideology.
Which is a peculiarly one sided analysis for someone with a presumptive interest in economics. Think about the costs: resources diverted from better sources, the perversion of the product itself (both in the public’s view and ideologically) by association with political action and political figures and the infiltration of anti-libertarian types into libertarian institutions.
Furthermore, I was more radical than Rand when I was twelve years old. I think most ‘baby step’ paths lead to permanent immaturity; the people who are going to make it at all are usually able to take the straight source; and not wishy-washy middle of the road nonsense.
You also totally ignored every point I made, like every other member of the Pauline church I’ve talked to.
I can’t believe I’m debating anarchists about whether a professional politician is a good face for libertarianism. Do they hand out crack when you sign up? Because I didn’t get mine. Nothing gets through to you people, you just blatantly ignore experience, reason and principle.
I’m not asserting. He brought myself and many other people here to anarchism.
So basically your major contribution is that you are not Ron Paul. Well, bully for you.
Please study libertarian theory related to reputation.
Rand is not Ron.
Flaming is unacceptable.
This sort of discourse is unproductive. You’re welcome to leave anytime if you’re not capable of being tolerant of other’s ideas without attacking them personally.