Who is the Next Ron Paul?

Miscellaneous General
41

"He can stop the drug war for at least 4 years by not utilizing the DEA, which will save thousands of lives, and keep tens of thousands out of jail. He can stop our wars over seas and eliminate the military bases the U.S. has all over the world (or at the very least, de-staff them) wich will save tens of thousands of lives, and reduce spending by hundreds of billions if not trillions.

All of this he can do because of the power vested in the presidency. This is a major change for millions of people’s lives, and while it may not be permenant, it will reduce a vast amount of suffering in the world."

Thank you. Very well said. Whip those non-believer libertarians with the facts.

42

Except he will never, ever win.

43

“Except he will never, ever win.”

Except that by running, he already has. So in reality, he always wins.

44

Except that by running, he already has. So in reality, he always wins.

Congressmen don’t do anything.

45

I think using the phrase “participating in government” is a bit misleading when nearly everything he does there is an attempt to restrain government.

I would very much like to see him run as a Libertarian or Independent and get 6-8% of the votes. Maybe then the Republicans would realize their big government ways are losing voters, and also the people might start to gain more confidence in a third party candidate for future elections. It would be great to break out of this two party (effectively one party) system.

46

“Congressmen don’t do anything.”

And Ron Paul openly acknowledges that politicans don’t matter, ideas too. Try again.

47

And Ron Paul openly acknowledges that politicans don’t matter, ideas too. Try again.

We were specifically talking about what he could do as POTUS. That is irrelevant.

48

“Except he will never, ever win [the presidency].”

Except that by running, he already has [won in a more important regard - spreading the ideas]. So in reality, he always wins.

“Congressmen don’t do anything.”

And Ron Paul openly acknowledges that politicans don’t matter, ideas do. Try again.

“We were specifically talking about what he could do as POTUS. That is irrelevant.”

You began with a red herring. You took this off relevancy, not me.

What could he do? Try get this passed possibly… not that it’d matter if it was or not. He’d do what he could to de-legitimize the state. Maybe encourage civil disobedience… when the President is against the system, well lol…

"In conjunction with the privatization of all assets according to the principles outlined, the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law of the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible:

Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in anyway he sees fit so long as in doing so he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person’s body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between property owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person’s infringement on them is subject to lawful persecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and of strict liability.19

As implied by this constitution, then, all existing wage and price controls, all property regulations and licensing requirements, and all import and export restrictions should be immediately abolished and complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced. Subsequently, the government, now propertyless, should declare its own continued existence as unconstitutional-in so far as it depends on noncontractual property acquisitions, that is, taxation-and abdicate." ~ Democracy: God that Failed, Hoppe - p215

49

Maybe then the Republicans would realize their big government ways are losing voters

I hate to be that guy, but if the Dems and Reps loose voters they usually loose the “right people”. There will always be a great majority of people who will stick to their ways.

50

Except that by running, he already has [won in a more important regard - spreading the ideas]. So in reality, he always wins.

You are using the word ‘win’ in a very strange sense which clearly departs from the sense I was using it in. I personally think it’s mainly a matter of luck how things go, so I don’t consider Ron Paul a win or a loss except that he is entertaining sometimes.

And Ron Paul openly acknowledges that politicans don’t matter, ideas do. Try again.

What is with forums and the inability of people to refrain from being snarky and more full of slogans than arguments?

I don’t see how Ron Paul’s personal philosophy is relevant. No one ever said he wasn’t a libertarian.

51

It would be great to break out of this two party (effectively one party) system.

Coalitioning is a side effect of having a representative government. There is no way to get out of the two party system because of the way the founders set it up.

52

Wait. Who’s Ron Paul?

53

“You are using the word ‘win’ in a very strange sense which clearly departs from the sense I was using it in.”

No, I am using it in the very real sense that his goal (end) is education - and his means are successful in achieving that. Winner. I was making a valid point that trumps your short minded and narrow one. You must have missed it.

54

You thrive on poorly disguised flaming, don’t you?

In any case, my ‘short minded and narrow’ one - not that that is a correct use of those words, anyways, - was a completely different point. Your ‘trumping’ was nothing but changing the subject, or failing to recognize what it was to begin with.

55

No, your flawed assumption was that his goal is to get elected. Thus by failing to do so, he ‘loses’.

However, that’s not his goal. To “win” something, there needs to be a goal - how success can be measured.

Spreading the message and ideas of liberty are his goal. You’re whole criteria is thus a sham. I was merely pointing that out.

56

Name calling is useless.

1.Ron Paul will not get elected for president.

2.His ideas will hopefully introduce people to Austrian Economics.

I don’t think we can put it much more simpler then that.

57

“Name calling is useless.”

And yet who has name called? That comment is itself useless.

1.Ron Paul will not get elected for president.

2.His ideas will hopefully introduce people to Austrian Economics.

I don’t think we can put it much more simpler then that.

Correct.

58

“Name calling is useless.”

And yet who has name called? That comment is itself useless.

I suppose, my apoligies.