Ron Paul is 75 years old. I hope he lives another 100 years and stays healthy enough to run every 4!
Reallistically, I need to face the fact that he is 75 years old.
I hope he wins in 2012.
but we still need to think about 2016, and 2020.
Who is the next Ron Paul?
Will Lew Rockwell ever run?
No one, I hope. I long for the day when libertarians become apolitical and stop putting on a clown suit to go play in the circus at D.C.
Hey, as long as the circus exists in D.C., I hope we have a clown or two of our own in the ring. Paul's work has resulted in a lot of exposure for our ideas. He's the reason I'm here, as well as many others. If nobody's convinced about the concepts behind libertarianism when the tent comes down on the current system, nothing's going to change. Someone will just stake it back up.
As to who the next person is? It's hard to say. I'm not convinced his son Rand is really on the ball. He's already playing some political games. Maybe we'll see someone like Napolitano take the spotlight. He's a little firebrand though. Part of Paul's appeal is his spry grandfatherly image. I don't think Lew Rockwell is someone to look to though, he has way too much baggage.
We have more and more spokespeople cropping up every day. It really could be anyone. It might do us well to look for local figures as well as national ones.
I don't need Ron Paul making my decisions. He has no business there.
LogisticEarth: Paul's work has resulted in a lot of exposure for our ideas. He's the reason I'm here, as well as many others.
Paul's work has resulted in a lot of exposure for our ideas. He's the reason I'm here, as well as many others.
How are you measuring the bad he has done?
If a "Ron Paul" isn't in there, it's not like the representative seat is going to disappear. Better to have friendly minds filling those seats hold back and chopping away at the state rather than letting it run loose.
In other news: Mises community divided over merits of Ron Paul and voting! Film at 11!
Ron Paul will be replaced by the semantic web.
When the internet becomes much more efficient in solving crime and managing reputation, the most monopolistic claim of government (on courts & police) will look retarded.
Look at YouTube. A decade ago most people opposed allowing children to learn from any teacher, whenever they want to. Nowadays everybody thinks it's 'natural' that everybody can share videos with everybody.
LogisticEarth: Better to have friendly minds filling those seats hold back and chopping away at the state rather than letting it run loose.
Better to have friendly minds filling those seats hold back and chopping away at the state rather than letting it run loose.
How are you measuring the bad that a self proclaimed principled libertarian in government causes?
By taking a government seat, he's making the government looks more legitimate. It says that he believes the governmental proces is what authorizes the use of force. He says it often too: "constitution good, constitution good, constitution good". No Paul, the constitution is a socialist piece of garbage and holds no legitimate power.
How are you measuring the bad that a self proclaimed principled libertarian in government causes? By taking a government seat, he's making the government looks more legitimate. It says that he believes the governmental proces is what authorizes the use of force. He says it often too "constitution good, constitution good, constitution good". No Paul, the constitution is a socialist piece of garbage and holds no legitimate power.
By taking a government seat, he's making the government looks more legitimate. It says that he believes the governmental proces is what authorizes the use of force. He says it often too "constitution good, constitution good, constitution good". No Paul, the constitution is a socialist piece of garbage and holds no legitimate power.
I think Paul says this to play the game, I don't think he actually believes that.
I mean, the man said over the weekend that we should be able to "opt out" of this system.
Of course the constitution is bullshit just like any other "magical" book or paper, but out of the three options:
A/ 100% ancap message failing to get elected => random politician replaces him
B/ RP soft-ancap managing to get elected
C/ No RP in congress out of ancap principle => random politician replaces him
Option B is by far the best because:
A/ Those more statist than RP's message learn from it (freedom movement)
B/ The anti-statists understand the game he's playing and don't go back to statism
Yes, lets just sit back and pretend the government doesn't exist. I am sure we can topple it through noncompliance with, oh, 0.01% of the US population on our side. It isn't we actually have to WORK to persuade people to accept us, we should just demand that they accept we are correct and refuse to participate if they don't like it. I am sure we will be influential when one of our most influential supporters disappears and isn't replaced, with the MSM echoing whatever the big government crooks say since we won't have Ron Paul out there to stand up for us.
I don't like government much, but we are NEVER going to get anywhere if we don't have someone like Ron Paul to get us publicity. He is the reason a HUGE amount of people are Austro-Libertarians in the first place. Short of going out of your way to read books by Austrian economists, the only other way for people to discover we even exist is to randomly search the internet, whereupon the best we can do is persuade them to join us through ARGUING ON THE INTERNETS. With Ron Paul, people are discovering who we are. Yes, he isn't perfect. So what? He beats the big government fascists who would be around otherwise.
I understand what you're saying, but you shouldn't be so rash in your thinking. I don't know how old you are, but I can assure you that Ron Paul has read everything you have and more. The reality of the situation is that we are in war, debt, and imminent collapse. This is driven by idiotic statists.
Ron Paul enters the congressional halls as the light, and indeed many wouldn't even know of Austrian Economics, Anarchocapitalism, or libertarianism in general if it wasn't for this man running for the 2008 presidental election. He has brought in so many bright minds into the sound ideas of libertarianism, and most of us know that he is merely trying to do the best he can given this current lifetime. Murray Rothbard talked often of a strategy for liberty, and Ron Paul's presence and his 2008 (possible 2012) are great strategical moves. It tries to head on face to face the ideas of statism and quash them.
There may be a day when rationale has triumphed and we are free again, and in this day we may come to decide if we wish to abolish government forever. This process can only be started with a spark, and RP is that spark. When you speak the way you do, you don't encourage cooperation and healthy debate, you cut everyone off -- even those who share similar opinions with you, but chose to be pragmatic and join government -- and in doing so, you ensure the revolution will never get started.
Be firm on your principles, sure, but know that communication is the only way in which we might hope to change the world. Apolitical is a nice ideal, but not a reality.
Also, Rand Paul isn't being the NeoCon that some people on here thought he was...
Rand was playing the game to get elected, he said what he needed to be said in order for people to vote for him so the Media couldn't asscociate him with his father.
Yes, even if Rand was a perfect copy of Ron ideologically, it would make NO SENSE AT ALL to copy his father's statements. Much better to branch out and bring in some sheep further down the road.
Ron Paul = Done more in modern history to enlighten & draw individuals onto the path of austrian economics & anarcho-capitalism.
Anyone who denies this, quite really is denying reality. Do a poll here - the large majority and here because of Ron Paul... ask anywhere there are libertarians. See sig and drop the absurdity.
OP - winning (votes) or getting elected isn't the point. Ron Paul has explicitly stated this, its' about the ideas - not politicans.
Nielsio: How are you measuring the bad that a self proclaimed principled libertarian in government causes? By taking a government seat, he's making the government looks more legitimate. It says that he believes the governmental proces is what authorizes the use of force. He says it often too: "constitution good, constitution good, constitution good". No Paul, the constitution is a socialist piece of garbage and holds no legitimate power. I agree with you Nielsio. While I think Paul is probably a great guy personally, and while most of what he says I can agree with, I don't think it really helps much to be dancing with the devil. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 35
Lmao, all he does is point out the government & state are the devil.
I don't see the problem with him in government at all. If it came down to voting for a neo-con versus a progressive, I can understand why people wouldn't vote. But the man promotes libertarianism to the masses in ways that many people have not been able to. You're telling me that, if you could get a job as President and lower everyone's income tax to 0%, you wouldn't do it? I'd much rather vote for a politician to end the drug war than simply wait for that utopia in which everyone understands why drugs should be legal. During the time it takes for everyone to figure it out, people will be hurt. Same with taxes. I'd rather end it quickly through a mechanism of which I disapprove. I half-understand people who are against libertarians running, but only if those people don't pay their taxes because then taxes don't affect them (aside from sales tax and some things you really just can't avoid). For everyone who pays taxes, wouldn't you rather vote for the least shitty candidate who will sometimes force you to pay less taxes?
Nielsio,
He does no such thing by participating in government. His public opposition to government as it presents itself today, and his advocation of liberty, free-markets, and non-agression does far more than any symbolic non-participation would. I consider myself apolitical in that I recognize no progression towards a free-society can be achieved through the electoral process, but as a means of spreading ideas, politics is very practical.
Also, calling the constitution a "socialist" document is absolute hyperbole.
So if Ron Paul votes "no" 95% of the time, does that mean he is participating in government in any meaningful sense?
This is one of those discussions that always pops up. It goes back to whether or not anarchists should participate in government because it is part of the power structure. In a perfect universe, I wish we could sit back on the high ground of principle and say unequivocally that we won't participate. But Paul is the best of both worlds because he hardly ever green lights anything the State does, won't raise taxes, and donates his salary to charity.
The most pragmatic, short-term answer is to play the game at the margins. Nobody is saying you have to support war to co-opt the Right and nobody is saying you must support economic regulation to co-opt the Left. That would be falling prey to how the system propogates itself.
As for the answer to the OP's question, probably Gary Johnson or Justin Amash. If Paul runs, Johnson most likely wouldn't because his entire support base would likely be in the Paul camp (so he would virtually have no chance to win). Paul sounds like he is going to run in 2012, so probably 2020 will be Gary Johnson's turn (assuming Obama loses which I believe he will). Although by then he would be 66, which is sort of old, but I mean McCain got the nomination at 72, so. It's certainly young enough to run. As for Amash, I doubt he will become a presidential candidate in the future, but his Facebook updates often reference Cafe Hayek and he is a Paulite through and through. You can probably count on him to be an obstacle in the government's path for years to come.
As for Paul's future, I really really really hope that he runs on the Libertarian ticket. He'll probably wind up with 5-8% of the popular vote. Of course that likely means Obama will win, but that gives the Republicans another primary in 2016 where somebody who is more closely in line with the Liberty Caucus faction gets a shot to further inject libertarianism in the mainstream debates. You're not going to get that from the Democrats in 2016 if they are going up against a Romney or somebody.
Ricky James Moore II: I agree with you Nielsio. While I think Paul is probably a great guy personally, and while most of what he says I can agree with, I don't think it really helps much to be dancing with the devil.
I agree with you Nielsio. While I think Paul is probably a great guy personally, and while most of what he says I can agree with, I don't think it really helps much to be dancing with the devil.
I don't think RP has any illusions (delusions) that he's going to have direct impact or meaningful changes in D.C. I'm fairly certain he understands the lunacy and futility of it all. I'm with Conza on this one. He's done more to educate and advertise Libertariansim to the masses than anyone in history. I credit him, and him alone for my recent awakening to the truth. I don't know how long it would have taken or if I would have even made the intellectual leap to AE and Libertariansim without his 2008 presidential run.
Education is what Ron Paul was all about. It is absolutely impossible for him to change anything if he gets elected, I think. I personally love Ron Paul.
Besides who cares I'm getting the heck out of North America.
"Besides who cares I'm getting the heck out of North America."
Quo vadis?
Mauritius in 4 years from now.
This is one of those discussions that always pops up. It goes back to whether or not anarchists should participate in government because it is part of the power structure. In a perfect universe, I wish we could sit back on the high ground of principle and say unequivocally that we won't participate.
Even in this real word, I don't think political participation accomplishes anything. We'd be better off claiming that libertarianism is a religion and moving to some Indian reservation.
@Drew Brando
A sentiment I fully support. When the going gets tough the tough move to a country that isn't full of bloodthirsty left-wing sociopaths.
"a country that isn't full of bloodthirsty left-wing sociopaths."
Where's that?
Chile, pretty much anywhere in East-Asia. Except for Japan, possibly.
You are in for a disappointment.
There are leftists in those countries, but their government gives them a short-shrift and the general population is anything but politically correct.
Korea isn't that good. China is literally full of left-wingers, and the property rights, etc are horrible over there. Hong Kong is adopting minimum wages and such.
Korea isn't that good.
Yeah, I thought of that.
China is literally full of left-wingers
Not really. Your average Chinese person is a thousand miles to the right of mainstream Amerikaners.
and the property rights, etc are horrible over there.
Bad property rights, especially in the countryside, big state sector, a lot of inflation; on the upside taxes are low and easily evaded, the government is fairly weak to a lack of funding relative to its population and size, regulations are generally low and easily broken and there is pretty much no such thing as welfare. Given that I would only go to a Special Economic Zone I pretty much get all the benefits and none of the drawbacks. Sucks for Chinese peasants, but not for white foreigners.
Hong Kong is adopting minimum wages and such.
HK is less capitalist, ideologically, than the mainland.
Why and since when?
Since a few month. Because Hong Kong has had a small gov't for so long the potential loot became so big it was worth making the effort to create some social problems.
They'll always be freemarkets in some part of the world.
"They'll always be freemarkets in some part of the world."
Even after world government?
I think you mean black markets. But those aren't free.
I heavily doubt there's gonna be world government in my time. Also it can';t last long, it is way too inefficient.
I always assumed the natural evolution of the free state project would be the free moon project. So even if the world was controlled by a single state we should all be fine in the colonies.
It is absolutely impossible for him to change anything if he gets elected, I think. I personally love Ron Paul.
I never understand this. He can do a ridicluous amount of good if he gets into office. 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.
I get it, we libertarians can some times lose sight of that in our heady universe of incentives and institutions, thinking that it doesn't matter in the long run. But it's still a worth while goal, even if it's only for 4 years. Using power to intercede against goverment on our behalf is NOT the same as using that same power against people's rights.
Sam Armstrong: I never understand this. He can do a ridicluous amount of good if he gets into office. 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.
Yes, thank you. And in addition to the benefits of Paul overturning chronic governmental maladies, there would be the enormous benefit of him preventing acute ones. I don't know about you all, but I'd rather not learn about one of my nieces or nephews dying in a food riot.
And can you imagine how much exposure Austrian economics and liberalism would receive with Ron Paul as president? By leading to changed minds, that would have long term benefits.
"I heavily doubt there's gonna be world government in my time. Also it can';t last long, it is way too inefficient."
Lmao! Yeah, because the parasites now have sooo lessmore hosts...