I agree about the neo-cons. But the John Birch Society was there, so I don’t see how you can call all of them “freaks”.
Notes from Festung Europa.
While the brief love affair with Obama is petering away Ron Paul’s popularity is growing stronger than ever. Sure, the ordinary man in the street probably has no idea who this man is but everybody who’s even marginally involved in free market knows and admires him. There are youths in Turkey and Sweden listening raptly to his Youtube broadcasts. For all their lives they’ve been bathed in cheap Social-Democratic rhetoric which has grown so tired nobody pays any attention to it anymore and all of a sudden they have a man talking something they really feel is right. They check his credentials and see that Dr Paul is also a man of sound principles, always defending the Constitution, not as a heathen idol (with all due respect to true, decent Pagans) behind which any sort of crimes can be carried out, but as an instrument to keep the government in check and to defend individual liberties. They ask themselves why there isn’t a single Ron Paul sitting in any Parliament or Senate in their own countries. Yet, differently from many US supporters, they are easily swayed by self proclaimed “friend of liberty” who usually turn out to be nothing more than low level party shills with a weak “pro-liberty” rhetoric and an horrific voting record.
Personally I believe Dr Paul to be the last knight of freedom in a country which we used to look up to in our formative years. While many were just dazzled by the big cars and the skyscrapers others saw the indomitable American Spirit which had somehow managed to live through countless wars and successive rounds of collectivization. But Dr Paul, as noble as a character as he is, cannot do much without support from Americans. Even if he were elected president (and chances are in 2012 we’ll either see an Obama 2 or a Palin, God help us all) what could he hope to accomplish without widespread support?
But if they at one time voted Buchanan and now Paul wouldn’t that imply they are lesser boneheads than most?
It’s a step in the right direction. Why oppose it?
Because it’s a recipe for the death of the libertarian movement in the .
That’s why I believe so:
-
the States are a huge country, and the President, Congress or every other single institution, be it the Fed, has just as much control of the American State as the GM CEO has on his company: none at all. Every law is implemented by the respective myriad of para-public agencies as fits them best. Even e well-intended law will be implemented badly, or not at all. If Ron Paul was running in a small country, say a Swiss canton, chances would be much better.
-
I have the impression that Ron Paul doesn’t have the character to put up with pressure for very long. Much has been said on Thatcher, but denying her exceptional iron will would be madness. Paul doesn’t have such a will.
-
Time preferences are so high in the , the state is so expanded and special interest so entrenched that even a minor reform like privatizing the post office will invite riots (assuming it passes Congress, and it wont). So, Ron Paul can only expect to pass not one reform during his term or, at the very best, to send the spiraling into a Thatcherite riot chaos. It is easy to see that an American Falklands (perhaps ?) would be needed to keep even a few simple reforms going.
All considered, Ron Paul as President will be totally ineffective at best, staining the hope that a few have in libertarianism for generations, or will invite chaos the likes of which Americans have never seen, and will associate the name of libertarianism with Nazism in the minds of the public. Do we really want that? Ron Paul should decline candidacy now that he can.
ITT a lot of pessimism.
I fully agree with that. You call it high time preferences, I call them incurable addiction but it’s exactly the same.
But all in all I don’t think Dr Paul will be the GOP candidate in the 2012. He knows politics and recent history too well and he’s well aware he wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything even with a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate. But he will use every opportunity like this straw poll to have his voice heard by the largest possible audience.
If things continue in this direction whatever candidate the Republicans will present in 2012 will have a much better shot than McCain had in 2008 given President Obama’s less than stellar record to date. At that point there won’t be need for a sound character with sound ideas like Ron Paul: any George W. Bush will do.
Normally I’d agree, but I think Paul would be honest about what needs to be done and the pain that’s going to be endured. The mob goes after the current power holder because he promises respite and delivers hardship. If someone got into office on the line that we’re in for a shit storm and it’s gonna suck for a while, that indicates two things: the people of the country heard and still voted for him; that’s what they’ll be expecting and won’t have any reason to complain, at least for a while.
Assume Ron Paul gets elected.
Any economic catastrophe will be pegged to Austrian Economics. I can see the media using this as an excuse and saying, “Keynesian economics is the only one left standing!”
sigh
They’re wrong, otherwise how did government ever get rolled back, any where, any time? Government does grow inevitably, but it’s not the only force at work in the world. When enough people see themselves as victims as opposed to beneficiaries of the government they revolt and replace it with one more agreeable to their current standards. At which point it starts growing again until you hit the same point of revolt. The only question really is whether or not a bloodless, nonviolent revolt is possible. My guess thus far has been no because the state is ultimately violence institutionalized and I always thought you’d need to counter it in the end with the same. But maybe not.
This movement, how’s it been doing for the last three or four decades?
If it’s possible to work within the system to reign it in, then electing people like Paul is what it will take at the very least. If it’s not possible to work within the system to reign it in, then electing Paul will be no more hamful than anyone else winning the election, and the end result of a complete and total collapse will be the same.
Good point. Still, I kinda take the same view of this as I do of the whole global warming fiasco vis a vi the media; eventually they have to report the truth or really look like assholes when the shit hits the fan big time. It’s just a question of keeping the pressure on and letting them abandon the party line at their own pace.
Recently I stopped agreeing with those saying that government is coercion, and hence we should have nothing to do with it. If we manage to roll it back, than we’ve made a difference.
The reason why I tremble at Ron Paul being President is that he’ll do harm, not good. Or at the very least, that would be a massive malinvestment of that guy’s career, knowing that he could do something much better.
You know, I find it staggering that libertarians want to jump right to the presidency, where they have no chance to make nay difference. I notice this first and foremost in my own country, where new parties seeks a MP seat, witout trying to get a town at the evry least. Why not go the Hoppean way, and get local town to completely privatize first? That would be an immensely smarter approach:
-
you can control an town, or even city. Big changes are implement in small communities (trust me when I tell you that a few big experiments in European politics are being tried in tiny Albania right now).
-
Personality and straight talk play a major role in local politics. Paul could easily get on some local network and explain the hardships to come to everyone, with a chance of being heard.
-
its infinitely easier to set clear goals in a smaller community
-
lead by example: libertarians would become know as “those who act, not talk”. Who’d need million-dollar spots than?
-
it’s a tried approach: everytime bankers want to catapult a guy into politic, they do not pay him to crate a new party. They get him elected to Mayor, and only after years of a good record, he is “upped” into national politics. The current prime minister of Turkey served as Istanbul Mayor, as well as the future prime minister of Albania. Why don’t we learn form our enemies?
So generally I believe that aiming for the presidency is a major mistake. Now that the libertarians have a major national figure as Ron Paul, well know and increasingly trusted why do we waste him away in the empty seta of the president, the honorary head of the United States, instead of having him run as Austin Mayor? Heck, why don’t we get Hoppe to run from King of Wales? Seems power-drunkenness to me, even by miarchist standards.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that organizing secession form the seat of the de facto leader of the community is infinitely easier. With a good PR campaign, chances of success are close to parity.
What about? That a coercive monopoly tends to grow in power, while providing less and less service? Are you going to make that argument on the basis that government is somehow special?
They didn’t. They just collapse. They hit rock bottom. As Mises said: “The Santa Clause principle liquidates itself”
This is a full blown acknowledgement by you that government cannot work and when people realize it, they revolt! So I don’t understand this inconsistency. According to you, government works because eventually there is a revolt. This is as a coherent and consistent of a proposition as any other statist theory out there.
No, they’re wrong that it will just go on and on until the government… what? Starts trying to stake claims in other galaxies? The tendency of the government to grow isn’t at issue; the idea that this tendency can’t be countered is. We know bloody revolution can roll government back and has in the past. I see nothing wrong with trying a bloodless revolution. There are other forces at work in the world. If the government will inevitably control everything whether anyone wants it to or not, why fight at all?
I disagree. They definitely collapse but not just because ‘they hit rock bottom’, but because they manage to engender enough opposition to force the collapse.
No, I didn’t say government works. I said the theory that they will simply grow and grow and grow and then collapse of their own accord is wrong. The question isn’t whether government works or not, but if it is possible, even for just a time, to restrain its destruction to some minimal level. You may not have a problem living through the biggest economic and social fuckstorm of history, I personally wouldn’t mind seeing if Paul, hopefully with the help of a few like minded conservatives in congress and the senate, manage to pull back the US government for a few years and give everyone a measure of relief, even if it is just stalling the inevitable. Who knows, maybe libertarianism will win enough converts to keep Leviathon at bay for a few decades while we rebuild some of out capital to the inevitable collapse doesn’t have to be a complete cluster fuck.
The real issue is whether or not the reason for government’s eventual collapse, which is really just broad based opposition to its policies, can act as a pressure to keep government destructive forces to a minimum for a time. I’m not inclined to think so, but I think it’s worth a try.
Your entire post is full of contradictions. Either the government can be contained within the system or it cannot. What are you saying? I have no idea except that I think you are trying to eat your cake and have it at the same time.
for example:
however, you also say that:
so it doesn’t work.. they always collapse? Which is it?
As if you just need to tweak a few knobs.
And why is the following so important:
Why delay the inevitable only to add more victims later.
Hmmh, probably what happened was that a big contingent of YAL-ers came for the Ron Paul speech and then stayed for the vote. So the vote most likely says little about Paulian or antiwar sentiment of your average conservative out there on the sticks.
My take on this is that Ron Paul supporters are a select group who are actually educated. Most Ron Paul supporters are very avid supporters and know much about politics and care about them alot, which is probably why they broke away from mainstream parties in the first place. Regardless, we have all seen Ron Paul supporters raid Romney campaigns with Ron Paul signs, we have seen Ron Paul win 2008 presidential debates and lose horribly in the actual election, and we have all seen the stupid sheeple that make up America. The educated and wise people in America who care much about politics make up the Ron Paul fan base, and their support and participation in places like CPAC and this straw poll can explain Ron Paul’s victory. When all of America, the uneducated soccer moms and the minorities who want a black president, the war loving neocons and the rich that want to help the poor but have no explanation how, when they all go out to vote on election day, the few educated people in the U.S. hardly have a voice.
Also, I am pretty sure Ron Paul will not run again. I can’t imagine he could physically handle another campaign, and he is clearly unelectable. Our country is becoming socialist, it is pretty impossible for a radical like Paul to win over the masses of the population who blame Bush, republicans, and “capitalist pigs” for our economic crisis. I hope he runs and hope he wins but it will not happen. As right as he is, as much as the statistics appear to support him, and as large as his movement is getting, regardless, he will not win. This is clearly my opinion but like Rockwell, I am against the whole idea of presidency, although Paul probably is himself, so we might as well do the best we can and elect him.
P.S. - I support people like Gary Johnson but I think he is just taking votes from people like Ron Paul. So are these so called minarchist libertarians, and neocons who try to label themselves libertarian, like Beck and Boortz. If you guys really want to make a difference and have a shot at changing this country, come on people, we need to band together and support someone who already has populatirty like Ron Paul, who is probably the most famous and best politcallly .
And I’m unsure whether or not it can be, hence, for the mentally challenged here, despite my pessimism I’m not against a try. Perhaps you could explain why that’s so fucking hard to understand? Unlike many of the idealists here who argue from their computers about utopia, I’m old enough and experienced enough to have had life hand me my balls a few times, always seemingly smaller than I thought they were prior to being ripped off. Learn some fucking humility.
Because my ass and well being means more to me than theirs. If it’s inevitable it will happen anyway. And if it’s not, life will be improved for some people and others might get a clue about economic reality. I see no downside to Paul and a few of his ilk having a shot at chopping the US government down. It’s not like their delaying the advent of Anarcho Capitalist Utopia which is just around the corner if they do.
Bad argument. Retract it, quick!