Assume for a moment that Ron Paul was elected president.
And he set out to do all the things he said he would do.
He will do all he can to try and end the fed, the CIA…etc, etc, etc, etc…
Is it unrealistic to assume that if he tried to end the fed and CIA, that the CIA would kill him?
Just those to things alone…not even including any of the other stuff he wants to do…would they really let any libertarian, freedom loving person do that?
More than likely, would the CIA not just kill him?
Look what they did to Kennedy.
But really, Ron Paul has said it himself - “Who would even want to be president right now?”
I… I don’t know if they could kill Ron Paul. And his VP… without fueling the libertarian movement any more. In all probability, they’d just put his presidential contact information up on 4chan and let him get trolled so hard that he can’t do anything.
Walter Block said an interview that if Ron Paul was elected, he would put Block in charge of the fed (to close it down).
I am a little uneasy about people’s idea for President Paul as a great reformer that will take unprecedented steps to tear down government institutions. While it would be a great victory for liberty, I fear it could open the door for a subsequent President to come in and unilaterally enact sweeping new government programs, justifying them based on the revolutionary precendent Paul will have set. This is always a concern when we rely on politicians to engineer revolutions for us. Before too long, someone we like less will be at the controls of that same machinery.
If he is elected, I hope he focuses on using the bully pulpit to really educate the American public about economics and liberty, and does as much as he can to foster dialogue and curiosity about the fundamental problems the state inherently poses. The public needs to begin to understand that forced collectivism is never the answer, or they will simply fall prey to another demagogue after Paul is gone. This is the only possible way to effect a lasting revolution. Once people stop believing in the state and start believing in freedom (rather than just paying lip service to it), all the institutional changes we want to see should take care of themselves.
But still, a Ron Paul in power > any Statist in power.
I think people’s view of Ron Paul as some sort of savior are severely misplaced and unrealistic. I do, however, believe some temporary good might come from his election, such as putting a stop to American involvement in the Middle East and elsewhere. But, being more realistic, I don’t think he stands a chance to ever get elected. We all saw what the Republican/neoconservative machine did to him in the 2008 campaign. Perhaps frightened to death that he’ll run again in 2012, the party movers and shakers are currently trying to coopt his message and fold into their neoconservative paradigm.
If they fully succeed he would be marginalized more severely in 2012.
Tom Woods has the right answer for working towards liberty, IMHO.
“Tom Woods has the right answer for working towards liberty, IMHO.”
What is Tom Wood’s liberty plan?
Nullification? If so, I agree. That would be a quick way to start decentralizing power. Although, the powers that be will be planting candidates and fighting all the way.
Yep, was referring to nullification. But, as you note, it’s just a start.
“Yep, was referring to nullification. But, as you note, it’s just a start.”
true…just like the blob on lewrockwell stated…
first nullification
second secession
third revolution
all we have to do is get the first one rolling…the other 2 will follow no matter what after the first has started
If it really happened it would mean the world has changed so much he wouldn’t need to do a thing.
Speaking of Nullification, if the Free State Project really got moving, I think it would be awesome if New Hampshire operated so well by using liberty that ultimately the majority of the State just declared New Hampshire as its own “territory” or whatever you call it (maybe it would just evolve into a minarchist watchman State). Would the United States government really have the nerve to pick on New Hampshire? I wouldn’t bet against it, considering one domino to fall would allow many more dominoes to fall and the Feds just won’t have it.
You’d think that would be a PR nightmare for the U.S. government, but I wouldn’t put anything past this Statist country who may support the “foreign” invasion of New Hampshire.
Okay, I got off-topic a bit, but it’s relevant to the idea of Nullification
"I think people’s view of Ron Paul as some sort of savior are severely misplaced and unrealistic. I do, however, believe some temporary good might come from his election, such as putting a stop to American involvement in the Middle East and elsewhere. But, being more realistic, I don’t think he stands a chance to ever get elected. We all saw what the Republican/neoconservative machine did to him in the 2008 campaign. Perhaps frightened to death that he’ll run again in 2012, the party movers and shakers are currently trying to coopt his message and fold into their neoconservative paradigm.
If they fully succeed he would be marginalized more severely in 2012.
Tom Woods has the right answer for working towards liberty, IMHO."
That’s exactly what they’ll do. But when they get in office, they’ll abandon it, and just be Ronald Reagan/Bush/Obama all over again. I don’t think the Neocons will ever stop, no matter what anyone does to prove their sorry asses wrong.
If feel as though most importantly President Paul would change the national discourse tremendously. Like 20% of what major news providers say is direct quotes from the president. Every night your local news spends 90 seconds telling you what the president said today (much more if he happened to be in town). Same thing with blogs, twitter, opinion columns, etc… So much of it is based on what the president is doing and saying.
Given this, people’s exposure to libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics with Ron Paul would increase dramatically. This might actually get people to wake up and understand peace, commerce, and freedom… leading to a “revolution” at all levels of government.
put his presidential contact information up on 4chan and let him get trolled so hard that he can’t do anything.
If that was a joke, then I don’t get it. If it wasn’t, then I don’t get it either. Please explain how trolling is supposed to keep anyone - let alone the President - from doing anything.
That Ron Paul would be elected president in this universe would only be indicative of the political-intellectual climate and of how open people are to markets and less government. Other than that, to actually make a difference in how things are run, such as ending the Fed, and abolishing 90% of government agencies looks unlikely. It ultimately depends on the political orientation of other people in influence, such as those in Congress and the media. A top-down approach in itself just won’t work.
Anyways, I think Ron Paul is making enough of a difference apart from his being a politician.