Great point.
Although, I think Wayne Allen Root is catching up!
I’ve seen that interview and hundreds others with the guy, and hundreds others with libertarian/anarchist tilt (I have no life).
But seriously, I like him, but just look at what’s happening with his son in Ky - he’s becoming the typical polician. One always has to forgoe priciples when entering the political arena. And Ron had endorsed numerous neocons and issues (i.e. immagration, the border). Just admit Ron’s a typical politician. If he wasn’t he’d go full agorist by now.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t become anarchist till after I heard about Ron Paul. But that doesn’t mean anything because I probably would have figured it out eventually. Who knows when it would have been? It doesn’t mean RP serves some kind of holier than thou purpose of abolishing the state from within, slowly or something. That has never worked.
Just look at all his jung ho supporters holding up their constitutions like it’s more than just a piece of toilet paper and their worship of the founding fathers like their are immortal gods or some crap like that. It does not help to end the state only justifies it’s existence.
Then he did his job. He reached a great many of us, who ended up here, who ended up pursuing a deeper scholarship about liberty and economics.
Your attacks on him for being imperfect are a reflection of your own dissatisfaction with the impact you have on the world, not some higher purpose he is supposed to achieve towards your ends.
Yes, Ron Paul is a politician. Yes, Ron Paul agitates within the political system, using political means. Yes, Ron Paul has done more than anyone in centuries to advance the ideas of laissez-faire and liberalism, and not-so-indirectly, a voluntary society.
Get over it.
Ron Paul has been the #1 reason that the number of ancaps has swelled in past years. Your own self-assurance aside, do you think they all would have “figured it out eventually” even without Paul, even though before Paul’s campaign, ancap numbers were stagnant?
The Ron Paul campaign was something special. You, and countless others, are here striving for liberty because of it. For you to say, “He only hurts the cause of liberty/anarchy” is appalling.
Voting, in the political sense,is a counterproductive means to achieve the ends of voluntarism. However, we are still at the stage where the vast majority will simply shut their ears the moment you mention anything remotely close to this.
The only way to reconcile the Ron Paul movement with this is to recognize that Ron Paul is a means to get some of those people to a stage where they do not shut their ears, but at least debate you. Then Ron Paul has done his job (from my perspective). So Ron Paul as a sort of a “trick” to draw people into the intellectual battle about freedom is a good thing. Ron Paul as a means to propagate constitutional and limited government is a bad thing.
Here is the question at hand at hand. In which direction is the net flow of ideas as a result of Ron Paul? To freedom or to statism? As much as I despise the rhetoric about the constitution, I have to accept the fact that the net flow seems to be in our direction right now.
“I’ve seen that interview and hundreds others with the guy, and hundreds others with libertarian/anarchist tilt (I have no life).”
Eh, that’s the only one where he explictly confirms it as far as I’m aware. Where are these others?
“But seriously, I like him, but just look at what’s happening with his son in Ky - he’s becoming the typical polician.”
That’s his son, that isn’t him.
"One always has to forgoe priciples when entering the political arena. "
No, one doesn’t. Ron is case and point. But there is obviously immense pressure to conform, the whole system is geared towards it. If you actually believe in the legitimacy of government, then you have no hope. That’s why Rand “fails” in comparision.
“And Ron had endorsed numerous neocons and issues (i.e. immagration, the border).”
What neocons? I specifically remember Ron advocating “non-voting leagues”, or if you do to vote - for the minor parties (non status quo), instead of lesser of two evils.
Immigration? There are libertarians on every ‘side’. Block - “open”, Hoppe “closed” and Kinsella who has the plumbline position.
“For what it’s worth, I didn’t become anarchist till after I heard about Ron Paul.”
That goes for me and 100,000’s +.
“It doesn’t mean RP serves some kind of holier than thou purpose of abolishing the state from within, slowly or something. That has never worked.”
Again with the strawmen. He actually openly acknowledges that. The fact that you don’t understand that given the situation makes it even worse.
“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” Ron Paul told the London [Independent](http:// http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1992201-2,00.html#ixzz0pf63DXmV) in December.
He filters people outside the system.
“Just look at all his jung ho supporters holding up their constitutions like it’s more than just a piece of toilet paper and their worship of the founding fathers like their are immortal gods or some crap like that.”
I was banned from Ron Paul Forums for exactly that reason [Continuing to point out that Ron is a voluntarist, using his own words against his own “supporters” is a very quick way of opening their eyes, or getting yours poked out. [Recently unbanned due to the illogical / emotional moderator has been stepped down, not worth going back though. Maybe I’ll feel the urge if I see Ron in the debates again…) And yet their complete & utter ignorance of what he actually represents, doesn’t diminish his quality in getting others to look into Austrian Economics and Libertarianism.
He essentially directs them to this very institution, or at least others that all really hark back to this place in some capacity. He gets people on the right path, and then they do the rest. (Learning etc.)
I’m also an ancap thanks to Ron Paul.
Voting for Ron Paul is not about voting for a voluntary society politically. It’s about giving him exposure to keep doing what he does best: giving people all over the world a political education.
Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign was the turning point in my life from neo-con to ancap. It took a lot of time, reading and introspection, but I know for a fact that I would not be Libertarian were it not for him. I have much respect for him, even though he is a “politician”, using political means.
I don’t think he could ever win the presidency, let alone the primary, but I don’t think that’s what he needs to do. Just keep watering the tree of liberty and people will make the journey.
I wouldn’t be an anarcho-capitalist if it wasn’t for Ron Paul. This means that all the people I converted probably wouldn’t be anarcho-capitalists if it wasn’t for Ron Paul either.
How many people did you convert? What’s your secret?
Enlightened…
Okay, so let’s say 100,000+ have become ancaps or anarchs bc of RP08. A lot more have become minarchists/constitutionalists. No, no. Very Bad.
What Neocons?
Several. One out in Co, quick example. He also supported TX gop for some dumb shit this year, don’t remember what exactly, I think gop reelections. Give me a break.
Your attacks on him for being imperfect are a reflection of your own dissatisfaction with the impact you have on the world
Oh sorry I’m not out trying to change the world like you with 10,000 posts on Mises. wtf? I’m supposed to try to change these zombies that believe some ferry in the sky is protecting them from falling off a cliff? No thanks buddy. Not wasting my time. Life’s too short. I’ve got my own problems anyway like trying to survive, make a living in this statist society with jobs few and far in between and even fewer that are necessary, productive, or the least bit fulfilling thanks to the burden of unnessesary laws and regulations.
Peace. -Cool
Why is that bad?
EDIT: And how can you possibly know how many people have converted to specific beliefs?
Given that virtually none of those minarchists/constitutionalists were ancap before, and virtually all of them were neocons or left-liberals before, it’s not bad at all. Also, a lot of them are in merely a transitional phase, and will eventually become ancap; just like it was a gradual, if relatively quick, process for a lot of us.
Agreed. I think we all were something before we became ancaps. I’d much prefer to have a world full of minarchists/constitutionalists rather than neo-cons, prog-left, or any other of the mainstream belief systems.
If they were neocons or progressives before they were minarchists or constitutionalists, then it’s a big move in the right direction.
This isn’t about my post count. This is about you expressing dissatisfaction for what Ron Paul does, even though what he does has absolutely no bearing on what you choose to do. If you disagree with his approach, exercise your own. People confuse the opportunity to speak with the obligation to criticize, and criticism as a form of production given the low barriers to participation online.
When I feel weak and defeated, I think about Ron Paul dragging himself around on the campaign trail of 2007 and 2008 in his 70s.
No time to hustle for liberty, time to criticize others for trying. Others who ironically, helped you achieve the insight to be a critic.
Spot-freaking-on!
I once heard someone say that the reasons libertarians are so underrepresented in the political sphere is that they spend so much time fighting amongst themselves since the ideology has so many layers.
Even though I don’t think Paul will get elected, I support him since it’s a great opportunity for him to educate people and get more people on board. His popularity especially among young people feels like a once in a lifetime opportunity and when he retires I don’t know when another figure like him will emerge.
You can make sure it doesn’t stop with him. If we all pitch in just a little bit, we can move mountains.