It seems as though he may have the best chance to beat Obama.
"Republican Congressman Ron Paul from Texas raised an astonishing $1m in just one day towards his 2012 challenge for the presidency – and he only trails Obama by seven points according to a poll.
When those surveyed were asked whether they’d prefer Paul or Obama to be in the Oval Office, 45 per cent went for the Texan, compared to 52 per cent for the current President.
It’s certainly a shock result, but the study was conducted before the killing of Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden, which is likely to give Obama a huge ratings boost."
I was quite surprised to hear about this. Hell, I didn’t even know Paul’s name four years ago, but he’s already a serious contender for the presidency. The economy’s only going to get worse as time passes; were the GOP to call a truce on most social issues and nominate Paul for the presidency, Obama would get his Keynesian ass handed to him.
I don’t think that Osama’s death will have much impact in the long run, either…Obama got a big spike in the polls after ObamaCare was passed, too, but it disappeared almost immediately afterward.
I do not think that is the issue I am arguing about. The fact that people actually think Ron Paul actually has a chance in defeating the system by using the system is the problem i am trying to get others to see.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
support him how?
[/quote]
However the hell you want/can. For once I’d like someone to explain to me any sort of gain to be had from this non-stop, unwavering barrage of negativity from these elitist anarchists. I don’t get the purpose behind this attitude of “you guys are idiots if you think anything will ever change, Ron Paul has no shot against the establishment, no one will ever consider us anything but crazy kooks, you’re wasting your time even talking to statist idiots, blah blah blah”. I mean I understand the appeal of the “I’m so much better than everyone else” thing, but do you really have nothing better to do with your time than sit around and complain?
If you don’t think promoting liberty is useful, then don’t. But don’t come around here and try to shit on everyone else. You’re just like all the whiners who bitch about the Institute mentioning pop culture items…you like your anti-mainstream status and relish in having your little non-conformist corner and being able to tell everyone that everything they think they know is wrong.
I think that just like everyone else who rags on anything that’s popular or that other people seem to like or get excited about, you want to seem above the fray, and better than everyone else. It’s a holier than thou thing to be able to say “I can’t believe you read/watch/believe that crap.” So when you see things you agree with actually gaining traction and popularity you have to go into attack mode (which is really defense mode). You have to attack the fact that people are enthusiastic about something as a way to defend yourself against the possibility of actually being part of something recognized and appreciated by more than a small handful of people.
It’s almost like you work against the movement, not wanting things to catch on and become widely accepted because you want to stay “fringe” and “kooky” because it’s what makes you different. It’s what supposedly makes you smarter, more interesting and better than everyone else.
If you don’t want to help make the ideas (or prominent people who spread them) more popular, fine. But don’t get in the way of those of us who actually want more people to join our way of thinking.
There is also the fact that he is probably directly or indirectly responsible for this sites growth in popularity over the past few years…much less the fact that libertarianism is probably the most relevant it has been since the early 1900’s as a mainstream thought.
Also look at the traffic on market anarchist sites, the wikipedia page on market anarchism, etc 1 yr before Paul ran for pres vs now.
Indirectly, yes. It was a lot of people who were not affiliated with his campaign that made the money bombs happen, and a success. It was the grassroots, coordinating at the Ron Paul forums and Daily Paul which made all of the gains. Paul just stayed in the race as long as he could, he never really did much except deliver a couple choice lines at debates, and the campaign was incredibly impotent.
Neodoxy’s post was asking why we may think a Paul presidency would be a good thing. Not merely him running, but him winning. People are so shallow-minded that they would likely blame anything bad that would happen during Paul’s tenure on libertarianism as an ideology when a) it wouldn’t be Paul’s fault necessarily since there are many people other than him in the govenrment and b) Paul would be heading a constitutional republic in the name of libertarianism which we (being market anarchists) see as a contradiction. One needn’t look any further than the “MOAR REGULATION!!” crowd who blames all of our problems on “too much laissez-faire” to get the point. If Paul, by some shocker, managed to win, people would be looking for anything to discredit libertarianism since they hate it already and if something did go bad, they would ditch it much faster than they would conservatism or liberalism since those are “mainstream.”
The only way we can win people over is through non-political persuasion. Paul engaging in these primary debates is something of that sort, him actually getting into office and getting into the political mudslinging while perhaps discrediting libertarianism in the process is another. Of course I think most of Pauls’ strategies would be better for the country, but our nation isn’t good at sorting out counterfactuals (something like if a terrorist attack happened, they would blame Paul for not being “tough on national security” when perhaps this attack would have occurred on Dick Cheney’s watch)
Ron Paul did say that voluntarists can only change people’s thinking and habits by setting a good example, which is the only non-coercive way.
It sounds impotent, but this community proves it was not nearly as impotent as it sounds. It’s exactly as simple as it sounds.
In the end, all those attempts to “change the system from within”, to fund expensive think tanks, to use public school systems to push for your ideas, and so on are all much more impotent and wasteful. Just set a good example, and do it occasionally too, if you have to, right?
Even if the most extreme politician-skeptics here distrust or distance themselves from Ron Paul, they can simply just take this simple motto and leave the rest.
No one is getting in your way, and if your panties get in a knot over some low key comments on an internet forum, your movement is completely doomed.
It is hard for some of us to buy back into what Ron Paul is selling to the less libertarian masses, and some of us know that ultimately we need to get past Paulist Constitutionalism if we really believe in libertarian ideals. That doesn’t mean that Paul doesn’t have his role to play, but once you know the state is a sick joke and a bad acid trip, it is incredibly hard to get motivated about someone’s campaign in the context of pretending the political system is real or has any legitimacy.
Just as you feel compelled to pull people towards Paul’s message, I feel compelled to pull you deeper towards my message. There is no state, there is no Constitution and there are no citizens. The act of voting is completely insane.
Neodoxy’s post was asking why we may think a Paul presidency would be a good thing. Not merely him running, but him winning. People are so shallow-minded that they would likely blame anything bad that would happen during Paul’s tenure on libertarianism as an ideology when
That is a worry but:
a) he won’t win
b) if anything there is at least a decent chance, better than anyone else, that he will end all the f***ing imperialism and war mongering in hurry.. While liberterianism may get a bad name, that is worth it not thinking of all that senseless killing. For me anyway.
To the extent that real terrorism is caused by the governments foreign policy, a real terrorist attack would be less likely and as commander in chief, he does have the ability to bring the camoflauged men with guns home. That’s huge for the economy.
It’s silly to be totally disatisfied with anything but anarchy- life is messy and watching Ron Paul stirring up things is fun. I’m pretty excited for the upcoming elections- the Ron Paul contingent should be much larger and better educated this time around.
“While liberterianism may get a bad name, that is worth it not thinking of all that senseless killing. For me anyway.”
I tend to agree, William, but the goal for me is a stateless society in some form because I think it could make the world an exponentially better place. As Paul himself recognizes, the imperialism of the U.S. can’t last much longer; we can just wait it out at this point before it folds in on itself.