Ron Paul is going on the View, Hannity, and the Colbert Report today. This Thursday (April 28th) Stossel is doing a whole show on Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is not even in campaign mode yet he is being interviewed again and again in a short time span. I wonder what another campaign run might look like.
(Don't think this embed will work, so Ron Paul on Colbert)
He is popular enough to get on shows just for ratings.
He is speaking very well to his audience (linking pay to Planned Parenthood to the billions spent on wars, which is obviously a connection Whoopi, et al. don't see). I think he is promoting his ideas more clearly this time around than last election season, actually.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Lagrange multiplier: I think he is promoting his ideas more clearly this time around than last election season, actually.
What ideas exactly? That you don't spend money on helping the poor because according to his interpretation of a 230 yr old piece of paper, it is not allowed. Some ideas. This is a turnoff (as it should be) to most libertarians, so why would it be a success with this liberal audience??
In fact, the only ideas on liberty promoted in that segment was the mentioning of his new book at the end by one of the girls.
I think Paul uses the Constitution as a stance not because he agrees with everything in it but because it shows that what the U.S does goes against its social contract...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
"What ideas exactly? That you don't spend money on helping the poor because according to his interpretation of a 230 yr old piece of paper, it is not allowed. Some ideas. This is a turnoff (as it should be) to most libertarians, so why would it be a success with this liberal audience??"
Think of it like a contract then maybe your tiny pea-brain will understand.
Phaedros: "What ideas exactly? That you don't spend money on helping the poor because according to his interpretation of a 230 yr old piece of paper, it is not allowed. Some ideas. This is a turnoff (as it should be) to most libertarians, so why would it be a success with this liberal audience??" Think of it like a contract then maybe your tiny pea-brain will understand.
A contract where we all did not agree to is not really a valid contract...
"A contract where we all did not agree to is not really a valid contract..."
What's your point? That's the way it is treated.What solution to this is politically even possible at this time? I agree that not everyone has agreed to it, nor would they probably, but what do YOU think can be done about that?
DD5:What ideas exactly? That you don't spend money on helping the poor because according to his interpretation of a 230 yr old piece of paper, it is not allowed. Some ideas. This is a turnoff (as it should be) to most libertarians, so why would it be a success with this liberal audience??
What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Would it make you feel better if it were a 2 year old piece of paper? Give me a break. It's the ideas of limited government, and actually holding those in power to those limits...actually enforcing the restraints that we Americans put on our own government (yes, 230 years ago). Very simple ideas, sure. Old ideas, fine. But are you really going to sit there and argue against the notion of moving in the opposite direction from which we are heading? Is it really that important to you to be an argumentative antagonist that you would actually expend your energies ragging on the one f-ing guy on the Hill who even knows what liberty is and has a shot at really changing things?
This "I know better than everyone else, not even Lew Rockwell is anarchist enough for me and Ron Paul is a pussy...anyone who even mentions the Constituiton is a waste of time" elitist attitude is really getting old. It runs parallel to the same idiocy perpetuated by all the whiners who bitch about the Institute mentioning pop culture items. I really don't know what the hell you hope to accomplish with that.
Phaedros: "A contract where we all did not agree to is not really a valid contract..." What's your point? That's the way it is treated.What solution to this is politically even possible at this time? I agree that not everyone has agreed to it, nor would they probably, but what do YOU think can be done about that?
So is your position stating that while you know why social contracts are invalid, you still choose to accept it because 'that's the way it is'?
DD5: Lagrange multiplier: I think he is promoting his ideas more clearly this time around than last election season, actually. What ideas exactly? That you don't spend money on helping the poor because according to his interpretation of a 230 yr old piece of paper, it is not allowed. Some ideas. This is a turnoff (as it should be) to most libertarians, so why would it be a success with this liberal audience?? In fact, the only ideas on liberty promoted in that segment was the mentioning of his new book at the end by one of the girls.
I believe you are right from more than just an anarchist perspective. Even constitutionalist libertarians should understand that "it's not in the Constitution" is not a good enough explanation for most. There are certainly reasons why the limitations on government are good, but this is not self-evident. People are naturally inclined to look up to the state for help simply because it is so powerful and its officials must act as if they have the solutions in order to get elected. What Dr. Paul said amounted to "I'm not helping the poor" and "I'm just another anti-abortion Republican" in the ears of the target audience. Not that those women would understand any significant amount of political philosophy, but the man didn't say a single thing to make people say "well that's a good point," something he is usually so good at doing.
It's as simple as this, guys: If Paul came out as an anarcho-capitalist (which I'm sure he's more than sympathetic towards as a philosophy), people would marginalize him as a nutjob more than they already do today, and the extent to which they do this would completely shut him out of the political scenes. If Paul is portrayed as an Old Right figure and defender of the Constitution, he gets the platform, he namedrops the Mises Institute and Murray Rothbard from a distance, and voila, you've created more voluntaryists who are intrigued and decide to study the ideas deeper. Obviously the idea that the State is necessary is the cancer, but there are withdrawal methods.
resist272727:What Dr. Paul said amounted to "I'm not helping the poor" and "I'm just another anti-abortion Republican" in the ears of the target audience.
"I practiced medicine at a time when we had no Medicare and Medicaid, I worked in a Catholic hospital for $3/hr, and I was satisfied, nobody was turned away, but the church took care of them."
[applause]
Whoopi: "[to the audience] Yeah...you're applauding old America. Now if we could somehow get back to that..."
Did we watch the same interview? They nodded their heads and agreed with everything he said. Of course they didn't fully understand everything he said, but they're idiots. But the people watching that show did not get "I'm not helping the poor" from "i worked for $3/hr and no one was turned away."
resist272727: Not that those women would understand any significant amount of political philosophy, but the man didn't say a single thing to make people say "well that's a good point," something he is usually so good at doing.
They didn't give him a lot of room to make the sophisticated points that lead people to say that. When you break it down, there really wasn't much time for anything...they spent a third of the time on the Presidential race, another third on the wars, and we're only talking about 7.5 minutes anyway. Not to mention the format where 4 people get to ask questions and have a total informal dialogue as opposed to a straight interview format in which the timing is at least somewhat planned and monitored.
resist272727:but this is not self-evident.
Thank you! One person who gets it.
It's also not self-evident that Ron Paul stands for more then just bureaucratic technicalities standing in the way of giving everyone free healthcare.
Looks like all these TV appearences have a very good reason:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/ron-paul-launches-presidential-campaign-20110425
Yep, looks like all those "Ron Paul 2012" bumper stickers are no longer hypothetical.
DD5:It's also not self-evident that Ron Paul stands for more then just bureaucratic technicalities standing in the way of giving everyone free healthcare.
1) Show me anyone who ever got to be President of the United States by making it "self-evident" he was an anarchist.
2) Make of this what you will.
Ron Paul on Hannity in roughly 30 seconds.
"I practiced medicine at a time when we had no Medicare and Medicaid, I worked in a Catholic hospital for $3/hr, and I was satisfied, nobody was turned away, but the church took care of them." [applause] Whoopi: "[to the audience] Yeah...you're applauding old America. Now if we could somehow get back to that..."
How do you think Whoopi wants to get back to that? Deregulation and laissez-faire?
I think they were only nodding their heads because they didn't really know what he was getting at. And he wasn't very clear on the healthcare issue. I don't think either of them were very satisfied with "the church took care of them" because neither are particularly religious and don't like the idea of the poor being dependent on religious institutions. I think we can also assume they don't buy that Medicaid, Medicare and government regulation in general are the problem when it comes to healthcare costs. They wanted to know what would be done about the poor RIGHT NOW and he didn't really answer. This didn't even make any sense to me: "When I practiced early, you were always charged the least and you helped people. But now you're charged the most." What is he talking about? And $3/hr. had to be quite a bit more whenever it was he was working for a Catholic hospital . . . although that's not totally relevant, it's not like he was a volunteer or anything.
I'm not criticizing Dr. Paul. The man is one of my heroes. I just don't think he got his point across to the target audience very well.
John James:1) Show me anyone who ever got to be President of the United States by making it "self-evident" he was an anarchist.
Pointing out "the gun in the room", the initiation of force against innocent individuals, the necessary violation of one's private property, etc... does not require one to declare he's an anarchist. " Not in the Constitution" is not the answer for why health care is not a right.
As for the comment of "no one ever got to be President.....", the comment is irrelevant. I assure you that Ron Paul has no plans on becoming president.
Please don't anybody comment on how Ron Paul actually believes this or that. I know what he believes in and what's he's trying to achieve.
I think his concentration on the war issue was brilliant since it's an audience of women. If there is one issue that unites women, it is opposition to war.
... and then he would instantly be denounced as a "fringe loon" and kicked out of the political spotlights no matter what amazing things he had to say. Had he done that in 2008, the bailouts would have been seen as "necessary" due to no strong opposition and "the market" would be blamed when things went tits up. Ron Paul is bringing our views to the mainstream, slowly but surely. Who gives two shits if he uses the Constitution to justify it? Okay, it is an old piece of paper. But it is, at the very least, a reasonably respectable piece of paper (so far as nonsensical "social contracts" go, anyway) that we don't lose much from using as justification. What he does is open the door to regular people for Libertarianism from whatever previous beliefs they had. He has made many, many people join us because they liked what they heard and did their own homework. Imagine you are some average Joe with loose beliefs about government, a regular job, and no real understanding of the State besides filing tax returns and seeing cops drive by. Are you going to be convinced to become a Libertarian by an old man raving wildly about "the illegitimacy of the state" and "taxation is violence"? Unlikely. More likely than not you will simply ignore him like people ignore the guys on the street predicting the apocalypse next Thursday. But such a person could be convinced by using things he probably knows and sound good to him (the Constitution, freedom, small government, etc) and leaving them as a gateway so that he can do his own homework. If the person is actually going to make a big difference (as in, outside of getting the initiative to vote for the "small government guy" on election day), he will likely do his own research on the issues and will hopefully radicalize himself through education. If we didn't have Ron Paul, we wouldn't get anywhere, insulated in our own little world that we can never truly realize, ignored by the world at large, and forced to watch as it all falls apart because we scared away the public through refusing to offer them a path they could understand.
Look, in 2008 his views, though moderate to us, seemed incredibly radical to the people he was debating with. They would get decent questions, "what is your view on the war", etc, while he would get questions that seemed like they existed entirely to point him out as the black sheep in the room, "Do you believe in aliens", etc. His responses to what serious questions he received were met with complete confusion by those around him ("What do you mean bombing people makes them angry?!). If he jumped into AnCap territory, he wouldn't even get to them. He would lose his credibility because the public at large just isn't ready for that yet.
Once the debates are filled with Ron Pauls (with the black sheep being a statist like Giuliani being asked how he thinks war is a good thing) and the moderator is another Ron Paul, we can have one of those Ron Pauls expose the gun in the room, whereupon he will receive the same reaction from the regular public as the public now receives from Ron Paul asking how we can afford to keep paying for imperialism and rising Social Security costs. Unless the entire system falls apart in grand fashion like a house of cards (whereupon this won't matter because the US will have ceased to exist and power will be local enough for there to likely actually BE a reasonably free place to hawk our stronger views), we need to do things in moderation.
He uses the Constitution as a soundbite in an age of manufactured consent, he shows that even by their OWN standards they fail remarkably. Even by what they swear an oath to do, they fail.
Double edged sword - because it can come across as being his end goal, which it is not. (See sig & the words from his own mouth stating the case). Is it effective? Absolutely.
Conza, we've been through this. Ron Paul is not an anarchist.
"One important solution is better enforcement of the laws we've got - which plainly call for illegal immigrants to be arrested and deported."
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7907_Ron_Paul_Arrest_and_Deport_Illegal_Immigrants.html
He only holds that view so far as illegal immigrants add to the burden of the welfare state. I've heard him say that in a free market there would be enough opportunities and it would cease to be an issue.
That doesn't address my point.
I don’t think Ron Paul’s endorsing government force to ward off a risk of further impoverishing the country is inconsistent with being an anarchist philosophically, especially when he understands that government is at the root of the problem and his solution is ultimately less, if any government.
Didnt Rothbard and Hoppe believe in deporting illegal immigrants because they felt that they were violating property rights by illegally going to a country?
DD5:Pointing out "the gun in the room", the initiation of force against innocent individuals, the necessary violation of one's private property, etc... does not require one to declare he's an anarchist.
But it would make it "self-evident", now wouldn't it.
DD5:"Not in the Constitution" is not the answer for why health care is not a right.
Not the answer he gave either. "Not in the Constitution" is the answer he gave for "why is Planned Parenthood unconstitutional?" This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. You're so desperate to be a contrarian with something to complain about that you actually make shit up. And if you're really going to try to come back and argue that the answer to that question is anything other than what he said, I'm sure there's a wall somewhere near you that you can go talk to.
DD5:Please don't anybody comment on how Ron Paul actually believes this or that. I know what he believes in and what's he's trying to achieve.
Oh you have the authority to assess what Ron Paul believes and no one else here does. Give me a fricking break.
"Conza, we've been through this."
Yeah, you cited that link and I refuted it. From memory I asked for you to back up that claim that it was his statement with a primary source - you couldn't.
But never the less - immigration, no clear cut libertarian position. Block, Hoppe, Kinsella - diff sides. But yeah, we have been over this... go read the link in the sig again.
Ron Paul is not an anarchist.
His end goal is self-governance compared to a return to the US Constitution. Or are you calling him a liar?
Philosophical anarchist like Mises, if anything.
-------
No.
Mises was not a philosophical anarchist - he supported conscription. Also, you are completely wrong about Ron Paul's position on illegal immigration. Watch it in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9s5Hpa1iXU
Obviously I'm right - Ron Paul is not an anarchist. He says in the above video that he wants more border guards. But maybe you're right and that's just secret slang for being an anarchist.
I want to apologize for my being an ass earlier in this thread. The interwebs gets the worst of people sometimes.
I have to disagree with Ron Paul on the Constitution. Joe Lieberman follows it the most, Dr. Paul the least.
Besides, going by what the Constitution says is neither right from a libertarian perspective nor legal, because the Constitution broke the law in the first place by not adhering to the amendment procedures set forth in the Artticles of Confederation--the Federalists failed to Amend the Articles of Confederation with an article saying it was null and void and that the Constitution replaced it..
"Mises was not a philosophical anarchist - he supported conscription."
Mises on Conscription, enjoy the read bro.
...The essence of the idea of conscription is the elimination of individual choice over occupation and the forcible sacrifice of one's life in the service of the state—two propositions that stand the entire Misesian edifice on its head. In fact, Mises favored the opposite of conscription (forcible enslavement) which is secession, the freedom to withdraw one's consent from government dictate.
A consistent application of the principle of secession would not only rule out conscription, but effectively make all government voluntary. As Jeffrey Herbener, et al., point out in the introduction to the Scholar's Edition of Human Action, Mises believed that "no people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want." (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 65).
And:
AEN: The strongest evidence against Mises as a radical anti-statist is the passage in Human Action that endorses conscription.
HOPPE: This passage is very peculiar. It, and the several paragraphs that precede it and the one that follows it, is not in the first edition. It makes its first appearance in the 1963 edition. It comes out of the blue, and has no foundation in his overall thinking. To me, this addition appears completely ad hoc.
You just have to remind yourself about his general position on government. Every group and, if it can be technically done, every individual, can secede from the government. Accordingly, conscription, in this sense, is completely illegitimate. If you read the 1949 edition of Human Action, there is nothing at all that would seem to lead to these particular funny conclusions.
AEN: Perhaps the Cold War explains it.
HOPPE: But the likelihood that he would make a statement like this is the greatest in prior editions. In 1940, he was in Switzerland, surrounded by Nazi forces. In 1949, he had just seen the old Europe smashed by war and imperialism; what better time to endorse the draft so it could be used to stop this type of thing in the future? But he did not. Why, then, does he do this in 1963? There is no major war going on. Vietnam was in its early stages. The Cold War is not at a peak, and the Soviet Union was in its post-Stalinist period. These passages cry out for explanation.
You're going to have to do way better than that - to make the case Mises wasn't a philosophical anarchist... good luck.
Also, you are completely wrong about Ron Paul's position on illegal immigration.Watch it in his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9s5Hpa1iXU
Obviously I'm right - Ron Paul is not an anarchist. He says in the above video that he wants more border guards.
And where in that video did he say he wants more border guards?
Didn't happen. Or am I delusional? Help me out here.. a specific time reference would be great.
But maybe you're right
I guess it seems likely... given you're certainly not.
"I have to disagree with Ron Paul on the Constitution."
So compared to the size of government we have now, you would NOT support a return to the size of government as outlined in the Constitution? (leaving aside the fact that it would grow in size again).
Oops, copy and pasted the wrong video. Here's the one I intended to post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38&feature=related
Protip: Skip to 2:18 (that's the part where he says he wants more border guards)
Cool story on the consrciption - sounds like a lot of hand wringing that Mises wasn't an anarchist. Fact is he supported conscription.
Oh what does it matter, the American state doesn't let people like Ron Paul become President, no matter how many border guards they want.
Come on, they killed JFK for a hell of a lot less than what Dr Paul proposes.
I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for the man, or that I don't like him, or that he isn't a gateway drug to anarchism or whatever, but he's never ever going to be President of the United States, and not because the MSM keeps saying so. Your government will not let it happen.
"Protip: Skip to 2:18 (that's the part where he says he wants more border guards)"
"2:00 - On the positive side alot of illegals come in here because they are depeserate and they know there is a job. In their work ethic, it's almost embarrasing some of them are more American than us, they work. If you got rid of the welfare system and you had more border guards [shakes head]. I don't want us to worry about the borders between North and South Korea and between Iraq and Syria, I want us to worry about our own borders." - Ron Paul
So do you disagree that troops should be brought home from around the world, that the empire should be ended... to instead defend the US's borders as opposed to Irans or Syria's?
Because that is the point he is making... so sad you feel the need to take his words out of context to make your point. Philosophy 101 - "compared to what", I suggest you go back to the basics.
"Cool story on the consrciption"
Cool facts about Mises and conscription. You got something more than assertions? How about a valid argument or response to that "hand wringing", should be pretty easy aye.. since it's just "so blatant Mises wasn't a philosophical anarchist"... lol.
"...the American state doesn't let people like Ron Paul become President"
"Come on, they killed JFK for a hell of a lot less than what Dr Paul proposes."
"but he's never ever going to be President of the United States, and not because the MSM keeps saying so. Your government will not let it happen."
Oh I totally agree, that's correct... and yet it is totally beside the point.
"Today, the State's protection monopoly is considered public instead of private property, and government rule is no longer tied to any particular individual, but to specified functions, exercised by unnamed or anonymous individuals as members of a democratic government. Hence, the one or few man conversion strategy does no longer work. It doesn't matter if one converts a few top government officials - the president and a handful of senators - because, within the rules of democratic government, no single individual has the personal power of abdicating the government's monopoly of protection. Kings had this power; presidents don't. The president can only resign from his position, only to be taken over by someone else. But he cannot dissolve the government protection monopoly, because supposedly the people own the government, and not the president himself." - What Must be Done: Hans Hermann Hoppe
"Oh what does it matter"
It doesn't matter that more people (millions) hear the message of liberty that they otherwise wouldn't have? That those who become interested and join the cause - that it can be life changing to suddenly understand the true reality of the world? Who grow the ranks of the remnant? That those who inevitably come here to learn Austrian Economics because they heard Ron Paul mention it, then also go on to read the Political Philosophical works of Mises and Rothbard, Block, Rockwell etc here and make it all the way to voluntarism... that doesn't matter?
"I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for the man, or that I don't like him, or that he isn't a gateway drug to anarchism or whatever"
Voting is essentially a red herring. It is who you support that counts.
“But one must use democratic means only for defensive purposes; that is, one may use an antidemocratic platform to be elected by an antidemocratic constituency to implement antidemocratic — that is, anti-egalitarian and pro-private property — policies. Or, to put it differently, a person is not honorable because he is democratically elected. If anything, this makes him a suspect. Despite the fact that a person has been elected democratically, he may still be a decent and honorable man; we have heard one before.” - What Must be Done, Hoppe
“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed
“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” Ron Paul told the London Independent in December.
For those communicating with Ron Paul “supporters” who fail to see that he uses the constitution as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent and that it is not his end goal (self-government)… calling them statists etc. is a completely flawed strategy. Pointing out what Ron Paul actually is - using his own words is much more effective at drawing others to voluntarism.
Ron Paul puts his position on anarchy vs. minarchy in quite plain terms here, where he states directly, "I think that [self-government] is really what my goal is."
He goes on to put it even more clearly, saying that being subject to government should be voluntary. It's pretty likely that he is being candid here because he is just doing a small-time interview, and when he talks to more mainstream audiences he naturally speaks more within the context of the constitution and trade-offs to be made as long as we are working within the existing system.
Why anarchy fails