Well, I guess for the hypothetical to be at all relevant one would have to make that assumption, as there would be nothing to “fire” Rand Paul from if Romney did not win the election, would there?
Did you actually just take the time to type that a significantly large number of Ron Paul supporters would prefer Ron Paul to be the GOP nominee over Mitt Romney?
I’ll go ahead and use your line: “the truth of that assumption is not obvious to me.”
If you’re talking about Ron Paul being the GOP nominee, I don’t even see why you’re trying to argue with me about this. That was my whole point from the beginning. This whole conversation started because at least three people in this thread alone said that Ron Paul should go 3rd party. My entire argument has been that that’s a terrible idea. A “salient article” articulating this very point was linked to, and I highlighted a piece of it, and ever since then you have seemingly been trying to argue against it…but end up basically echoing everything that I’ve said, as well as what was actually argued in the very article you’re allegedly trying to argue against.
First of all, if you don’t think "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB " = “people” or “millions of Americans”, I’m not sure what to say. Second, my argument is not who hates Ron Paul, but why they hate him.
My entire point was the simple fact that Ron Paul could win is not why they hate him. Your statement suggested it was. That is all.
Again I honestly can’t tell if you’re trolling or not.
Again, “the truth of that assumption is not obvious to me.” I suppose if you want to play semantics and dwell on what “spread of ideas” means, you could argue that. But if you want to honestly talk about what matters, it is the adoption, and more specifically, the implementation of those ideas. I honestly could not give a shit whether people identified as libertarian, or even knew or understood the ideas of liberty…so long as those principles were abided by. That is what is important.
And if you ask me, the most effective and efficient (aka fastest) way to have these ideas adopted and implemented is to have an “irate, tireless minority” active in rolling back the institutions of big government…as “knowledge without action is empty and useless.” Simply “spreading ideas” is not going to do much to affect change. The change comes when people take that knowledge and do something about it. And the fastest way to leverage the knowledge of that minority is to have them active in the public sphere.
For one thing, you’re more visible. You’ve got a bigger microphone. And you’ve got more respect. People will listen to a Congressman over some Joe. Like it or not, that’s how it is. Even lowly House Representatives get on television. Therefore, being active in the arena makes it more likely that people will not only listen to what you have to say, but consider it. More people will hear what you say, and they are more likely to take it with greater and more serious weight…and therefore you have a greater ability to reach people with those ideas.
That’s number one. You’re in a better position to spread the ideas in the first place. Number two is, you are actually in a position to actively change something with those ideas in mind. If you’re a local county clerk, or a mayor, or a legislator…your actions can directly influence the growth of government. Gary Johnson vetoed over 750 pieces of statewide legislation. All by himself. That is “making a difference.”
Sure, you could just say “ah politics is no good, that institution shouldn’t even be there in the first place” and go around trying to get people to agree with you, without ever actually trying to do something about it yourself. And yes, it’s theoretically possible, that over time, if you get enough people to agree more and more that government interference is unnecessary, that people would become less and less interested in government doing things and eventually it would just “die out” because no one would vote and no one would run for any office, and everyone would just be largely libertarian and not be insistent that the government do this and do that.
But in my opinion that is lazy and incredibly naive. There is no possible way you would be able to convince enough people of even minarchism (let alone anarchism) to where the state would just shrink through basically indifference and attrition. There is just far too much power to be had, and far too much to be gained from political entrepreneurship. If you limit the movement of liberty to just “spreading ideas”, it will go nowhere.
Obviously the ideas are the core piece. You need the ideas if you’re going to have anything else. And those ideas have to be communicated. But just look at where this movement came from. A lowly House Representative, speaking about it and voting it and introducing it in legislation. Yes the education is important. But my point is the change is going to come from what these educated people do with that knowledge. And currently they seem to be doing the wise thing…that is, moving into positions of influence.
You can affect change much faster and more efficiently if the people with the knowledge are active and effective at utilizing the system to their advantage. Again, do you really believe Ron Paul could have had anywhere near the influence he’s had, and would be where he is now, at the helm of a revolution, if he had just stayed an obstetrician? The ideas have spread the way they have in large part because of the position Paul held. Sure organizations like the LvMI have been there to offer intellectual support and a refuge of resources and camaraderie for people of the persuasion…but where did all these people get the idea to start searching for this information in the first place?
Where did these libertarians who are taking over local townships and county seats and the like get the motivation and the inspiration and the belief that they could make a difference (and the confidence that they were right and the established powers were wrong)?
I think you can unequivocally say that largely comes from Ron Paul. And I can pretty much guarantee Ron Paul would have been at most only a little more influential had he stayed in the Libertarian Party than if he stayed out of politics all together.
So my point is, you’re concerned about just “spreading the ideas”. I’m more worried about how to get those ideas adopted and implemented. And as the article articulates quite well, the 3rd party route is a losing strategy for doing this. Almost as ineffective and meaningless as simply trying to convince people that government is illegitimate so they shouldn’t be voting, shouldn’t run for office, shouldn’t pay their taxes, and should defend themselves if agents of the state start coming to collect.
Then you’re not looking at the big picture. Ron Paul running 3rd party would “hand the election to Obama” in the eyes of virtually every Republican. Such a thing would delegitimize and undermine all of the progress that has been made in transforming the party.
“[a 3rd party run] would validate their claim and propaganda message that Ron Paul supporters are not real Republicans and add credibility to their goal to push us out of the party as we are in fact rapidly taking over precinct by precinct and county by county. Over the next four years they fear our liberty forces may well take over some states and then the establishment leaders are out of their powerful influence peddling positions.”
Then you’re blind.
Here’s a nice piece of evidence. This man has the 4th highest rated program on radio, with an average of more than 1.2 million listeners per day. You don’t get more mainstream GOP Republican than this.
This guy is so angry at the prospect of Ron Paul running 3rd party that he is so desperate to have a way to get back at him that he (a Virginia resident) will “do everything in his power” to stop Paul’s son from getting re-elected in Kentucky, 5 years in the future.
And you don’t see how a Ron Paul 3rd party run could possibly hurt Rand Paul’s chances of becoming a GOP presidential nominee?
You said it, not me. (Well, I guess I kind of did say it, but you agree and concede I may very well be right.)
Maybe not the “spread” of the ideas, but certainly their implementation…which, again, is the only thing that matters.
Obviously…as what would be taking over the Republican Party if there weren’t libertarian ideas spread in the first place? Those ideas have already largely spread. That’s why the Party is in danger of being taken over.
And that’s my entire point. It won’t be taken over if the individuals involved become sidetracked and seduced by this 3rd party nonsense.
Have fun with that pipedream. I’ll believe that when I see it. Again, I think the much more likely scenario is a Republican Party that acts more like Ron Paul.
I thought that’s what I was doing. Was that supposed to be a joke? You’re really confusing.