This question has probably been asked before on this forum. However, if Ron Paul did decide to run for 2012, would you support his candidacy?
Obviously as freedom-minded people, I assume you believe that Ron Paul is infinitely better than any other politician America has in Washington. However, there are two concerns I’ve read on this board:
You don’t support voting or government on principle and by participating, you are giving the system legitimacy.
OR
Paul would potentially cut back so many programs and public infastructure that it would put the economy through, at the least, a recession that will be blamed on Libertarianism and free markets that would stain the movement forever.
Personally, if Paul did run, I think I would help his campaign headquarters in Michigan (where I happen to live). This differs from some who don’t want any involvement with government and I realize how the powers-that-be would never allow Paul to succeed. Even with that said, the effect that Paul had in converting people to anarcho-capitalism I think is a direct result of his national exposure. In 2012 with the Tea Party and the growing concern of national debt, I believe Paul would not make it out of the Republican primaries alive, but could be enough of a player to be in the mix. This would give the cause even more of a limelight, so I think even though we would be betraying principle, voting and helping out Paul’s campaign could ultimately do more good than bad.
All RP would really do in office is veto big government bills, try and end the Middle Eastern wars, and MAYBE the war on drugs. That’s a lot in 4 years. Don’t expect much more.
You don’t support voting or government on principle and by participating, you are giving the system legitimacy.
I have always thought that is a stupid reason not to vote. The government does not need your participation, it can just point to the votes, claim that Libertarians don’t exist, and continue driving up big government.
Paul would potentially cut back so many programs and public infastructure that it would put the economy through, at the least, a recession that will be blamed on Libertarianism and free markets that would stain the movement forever.
Okay, now THIS is a decent objection. But Reagan caused problems too due to his (mostly contradicting) tax cuts and raises. Yet the “Reagan Revolution” is still lingering, despite the fact that Reagan constantly did things that ran against what he was supposed to believe in. Ron Paul, on the other hand, would keep to his promises. Even assuming there was a 4 year recession (unlikely, most non-government caused recessions only last 1-2 years), his ideas would spread far better than if he never was elected president.
Actually, I am going to add one last possible objection:
Ron Paul would be unable to do all the things he wants to do due to Democrats and Neo Cons in congress. He would be held up in the progress of bringing America back to prosperity, so his reforms would be relatively small. Then Libertarianism would be discredited for having not changed enough things.
Nonetheless, I think Ron Paul should definitely be supported. His beliefs are great, he is reasonably well known in the States these days, and he isn’t a crook.
Yes. Movement toward liberty is better than no movement toward liberty.
“You don’t support voting or government on principle and by participating, you are giving the system legitimacy.”
When a libertarian seeks to greatly reduce government, I view a vote for that libertarian as a vote for liberty, not an abandonment of libertarianism. Movement toward liberty is better than no movement toward liberty.
“Paul would potentially cut back so many programs and public infastructure that it would put the economy through, at the least, a recession that will be blamed on Libertarianism and free markets that would stain the movement forever.”
I believe he could explain why his economic policies were the responsible for recovery, not recession, strengthening libertarianism as the ideology that ended the recession.
“I realize how the powers-that-be would never allow Paul to succeed.”
He does not have to win a presidential election to spread the liberty message. That alone will lower public support for government. If he does win a presidential election, he will, at minimum, be an obstacle to a spendthrift congress.
“In 2012 with the Tea Party and the growing concern of national debt, I believe Paul would not make it out of the Republican primaries alive”
I disagree. He could cite his voting record as fiscally conservative during both Democratic and Republican administrations. He could cite his warning of the housing bubble in 2003. He could easily prove he sincerely believes in limited government which can get him votes.
Yes, I agree with you that ancaps should vote for him anyway and that if he won it would probably help the libertarian movement. I’m an anarcho-capitalist, but I still vote, because I see not voting for anyone as saying all the candidates are bad.
One question I have for you though, is why would the tea party and huge federal debt make him less likely to win rather than more likely?
I think the fact that the shit he warned about is finally hitting the fan would make him likely to win. The other people who might run (Romney, Gingrinch, Huckabee, Hunter, Thompson, and Palin), don’t have a chance at the nomination. Once someone mentions Romneycare, it’s over for Romney. Huckabee’s track record as governor would put off too many conservatives, and the fact that Gingrinch has been out of office for so long and that he subscribes to the global warming theory means he won’t get it. Most people think Palin is too dumb for them to vote for her, and finally the other 2 just aren’t big enough names.
I actually see Allen West as the biggest threat to Dr. Paul winning the nomination, should West run. He would have the party establishment behind him, as well as the military industrial complex, so if West steps in then all hope is lost. I hope West won’t step in though.
If Dr. Paul wins the nomination though, then he’ll definitely beat Obama in the general election. I know most people here don’t have much hope, but I do. I think the people will finally wake up. I have too much faith in the majority, even though their track record has been almost completely bad up to date.
Finally, Dr. Paul would be able to paint Obama as a corporatist better than anyone out there and erase the image in so many peoples’ minds that the Democrats are the party of the common man and that the Republicans are the party of the rich and powerful.
Ron Paul has persevered through politics for ~30+ years, and has not wavered on his words or his principles.
It took those 30+ years to gain national exposure. And he has totally changed my world view. I like to say Ron Paul won the the election of 2008, but not the presidency. The least I could do is support him in 2012.
It’s all about name and idea recognition and repetition.
No2Statism: “One question I have for you though, is why would the tea party and huge federal debt make him less likely to win rather than more likely?”
My main point was blocked off by commas, so I see how one would potentially miss what I was trying to say. I wanted to say even though the Tea Party is active and concern about the debt is rising, the Republican establishment will not allow it. I just said that the Tea Party would keep Paul in the mix, win a few delegates and maybe a few states (I recall him doing well in Montana, South Dakota, and some others), but that is hardly enough to win the nomination.
I do think that Paul could be a huge player in New Hampshire the second time around. I hear his activities in Iowa have been on the up and up as well. That could get the ball rolling, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
I would absolutely support his candidacy. Even though nobody expects him to win, (even RP acknowledges this) his campaign is more about education than politics. He has done a tremendous amount of good for the libertarian movement. I beleive that many of us are here at the LvMI because of his exposure during the 2008 race. Even if he doesn’t get elected he can make big contributions by exposing people to new ideas that the other candidates will never address.
It seems that he gained popularity more after the election. With his Campaign for Liberty, the “R3volution” continued. It seems that everytime a browse though the news channels in the evening, there he is. The thing about a 2012 run is that he will already be familiar to a lot of people as opposed to before 2008 where he was generally unknown to the general public.
On the local level, libertarians can have more of an impact. After all, Ron Paul represents a small area of the country. At a local level, anyone can get involved and have success if there aren’t many other competitors. At the national level, there is much more competition so the work of an individual candidate is trumped by the beliefs of a large number of people.
I would support him, but really, really hope he doesn’t win. (Mainly for reason #2)
I think him winning would be the worst single thing that could happen to the Libertarian movement if it occured before the dollar crisis. The Keynesian mess has to be blamed entirely on them. Rightfully so.
If RonPaul implement Austrian policies to clean up the Keynesian mess, the media (and the people) will excoriate him. They will blame his policies for the pain that will ensue once America lives within its means again. Period. I think it could get ugly. So ugly that the Democrats would sweep control (possibly veto proof) of Congress and then eventually add on someone like Obama as President for complete control.
My hope for Ron Paul is that his ideas spread further and further and one day, when the country is ready for a reset then like-minded politicians from the Ron Paul school of thought can be elected and implement the reset.
I’m 27 years old and have never voted. I registered When Ron Paul was coming up… I thought it would be on the national ticket… but when he wasnt… I could not in good conscience choose between a douche and a shit sandwich… so I didnt vote.
If Ron Paul was on the national ticket… I would be voting for the first time… for him and Liberty.
I would support his candidacy, I believe the only way a free society will develop is through the states, and a strong federal government will not allow that. However, on the state/local level, I would only vote for a candidate that would push for secession & a society free of gov coercion.
But as other people have said, I am extremely uncomfortable voting.
I’ve been struggling with the question of voting for quite a while. Taxation is easy to see as a direct contribution to the maintenance and growth of the State, sure, and that’s pretty easy to protest as it isn’t optional; it’s force. Voting on the other hand is a direct contribution to the democratic system that supports the State as we know it now, and will be so long as it is forced on its constituents, it isn’t truly democratic, but it is a voluntary contribution to that system. I have to pay taxes which help the state, I don’t have to vote, which also helps the state. If I voluntarily take part in that democratic system, I say that it is acceptable for me to be potentially forced into legislation levied against me by the majority of voters, and that it is acceptable for me to do the same. I don’t believe that. That is the case for me not to vote.
On the other hand, voting, combined with education and activism, contributes to the direction of society into a freer circumstance. Additionally, it’s very possible that such a society could never be achieved without changing democracy throughout, and getting representatives to address the big ole fucking elephant that is voluntary society. that factor alone makes this quite a conundrum.
I support a majority of Ron Paul’s beliefs. I definitely support him in the sense of my agreement with his ideas outside of the preservation of a minimal state. I might even consider helping his campaign for the sole purpose of educating individuals about the free market and libertarian society. The only issue is voting. At this point, I don’t believe I would vote for him, or any other candidate for office.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting but it seems that many libertarians purport to believe that voting actually ‘means’ something.., that it in someway does what statist say it does,… confer legitimancy on politicians and their systems. I don’t think that propaganda should be naively accepted.
N00b, I think voting may constitute something different than using state roads. With state monopolization of sectors of the economy, you don’t have much a choice. You can’t avoid tax-funded roads or government-approved schools, etc. And even sometimes you would use the U.S. Postal Service because (in essence through taxation) you already paid for the service (so UPS or something would have to be so efficient that you basically pay twice what it costs to ship a package [UPS + taxes going to subsidize the Postal Service]).
Voting however is a voluntary decision that will, if your guy wins, impose your will on others and hence make you part of the problem. So I think there’s a (slight) difference between the two, which is the reason I posed to the question in the first place