http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384224/Ron-Paul-raises-1m-day--best-chance-taking-Obama-poll-reveals.html
It seems as though he may have the best chance to beat Obama.
"Republican Congressman Ron Paul from Texas raised an astonishing $1m in just one day towards his 2012 challenge for the presidency – and he only trails Obama by seven points according to a poll.
When those surveyed were asked whether they’d prefer Paul or Obama to be in the Oval Office, 45 per cent went for the Texan, compared to 52 per cent for the current President.
It’s certainly a shock result, but the study was conducted before the killing of Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden, which is likely to give Obama a huge ratings boost."
I was quite surprised to hear about this. Hell, I didn't even know Paul's name four years ago, but he's already a serious contender for the presidency. The economy's only going to get worse as time passes; were the GOP to call a truce on most social issues and nominate Paul for the presidency, Obama would get his Keynesian ass handed to him.
I don't think that Osama's death will have much impact in the long run, either...Obama got a big spike in the polls after ObamaCare was passed, too, but it disappeared almost immediately afterward.
Oh god, I don't know why libertarians think that Ron Paul for president is a good thing, exactly what good can he do?
Because it pulls people into libertarianism, influences the political sphere, and makes us look less crazy.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
i agree with Neodoxy.... it is a very wierd idea to think that we can beat this current system simply by following its rules and processes.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
The Ron Paul campaign is not about beating or winning anything. It's just a big propaganda campaign for libertarianism.
Libertyandlife: Because it pulls people into libertarianism, influences the political sphere, and makes us look less crazy.
Agree, disagree, impossible.
Libertyandlife,
I do not think that is the issue I am arguing about. The fact that people actually think Ron Paul actually has a chance in defeating the system by using the system is the problem i am trying to get others to see.
I don't think that's an issue. Let people believe what they want. He's not gonna win, why argue with folks about it? Just show your support.
It's just a platform for libertarianism, in the same way a music video could be.
support him how?
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:support him how?
However the hell you want/can. For once I'd like someone to explain to me any sort of gain to be had from this non-stop, unwavering barrage of negativity from these elitist anarchists. I don't get the purpose behind this attitude of "you guys are idiots if you think anything will ever change, Ron Paul has no shot against the establishment, no one will ever consider us anything but crazy kooks, you're wasting your time even talking to statist idiots, blah blah blah". I mean I understand the appeal of the "I'm so much better than everyone else" thing, but do you really have nothing better to do with your time than sit around and complain?
If you don't think promoting liberty is useful, then don't. But don't come around here and try to shit on everyone else. You're just like all the whiners who bitch about the Institute mentioning pop culture items...you like your anti-mainstream status and relish in having your little non-conformist corner and being able to tell everyone that everything they think they know is wrong.
I think that just like everyone else who rags on anything that’s popular or that other people seem to like or get excited about, you want to seem above the fray, and better than everyone else. It’s a holier than thou thing to be able to say “I can’t believe you read/watch/believe that crap.” So when you see things you agree with actually gaining traction and popularity you have to go into attack mode (which is really defense mode). You have to attack the fact that people are enthusiastic about something as a way to defend yourself against the possibility of actually being part of something recognized and appreciated by more than a small handful of people.
It's almost like you work against the movement, not wanting things to catch on and become widely accepted because you want to stay "fringe" and "kooky" because it's what makes you different. It's what supposedly makes you smarter, more interesting and better than everyone else.
If you don't want to help make the ideas (or prominent people who spread them) more popular, fine. But don't get in the way of those of us who actually want more people to join our way of thinking.
There is also the fact that he is probably directly or indirectly responsible for this sites growth in popularity over the past few years...much less the fact that libertarianism is probably the most relevant it has been since the early 1900's as a mainstream thought.
Also look at the traffic on market anarchist sites, the wikipedia page on market anarchism, etc 1 yr before Paul ran for pres vs now.
William:There is also the fact that he is probably directly or indirectly responsible for this sites growth in popularity over the past few years...much less the fact that libertarianism is probably the most relevant it has been since the early 1900's as a mian stream thought. Also look at the traffic on market anarchist sites, the wikipedia page on market anarchism, etc 1 yr before Paul ran for pres vs now.
Indirectly, yes. It was a lot of people who were not affiliated with his campaign that made the money bombs happen, and a success. It was the grassroots, coordinating at the Ron Paul forums and Daily Paul which made all of the gains. Paul just stayed in the race as long as he could, he never really did much except deliver a couple choice lines at debates, and the campaign was incredibly impotent.
Neodoxy's post was asking why we may think a Paul presidency would be a good thing. Not merely him running, but him winning. People are so shallow-minded that they would likely blame anything bad that would happen during Paul's tenure on libertarianism as an ideology when a) it wouldn't be Paul's fault necessarily since there are many people other than him in the govenrment and b) Paul would be heading a constitutional republic in the name of libertarianism which we (being market anarchists) see as a contradiction. One needn't look any further than the "MOAR REGULATION!!" crowd who blames all of our problems on "too much laissez-faire" to get the point. If Paul, by some shocker, managed to win, people would be looking for anything to discredit libertarianism since they hate it already and if something did go bad, they would ditch it much faster than they would conservatism or liberalism since those are "mainstream."
The only way we can win people over is through non-political persuasion. Paul engaging in these primary debates is something of that sort, him actually getting into office and getting into the political mudslinging while perhaps discrediting libertarianism in the process is another. Of course I think most of Pauls' strategies would be better for the country, but our nation isn't good at sorting out counterfactuals (something like if a terrorist attack happened, they would blame Paul for not being "tough on national security" when perhaps this attack would have occurred on Dick Cheney's watch)
Ron Paul did say that voluntarists can only change people's thinking and habits by setting a good example, which is the only non-coercive way.
It sounds impotent, but this community proves it was not nearly as impotent as it sounds. It's exactly as simple as it sounds.
In the end, all those attempts to "change the system from within", to fund expensive think tanks, to use public school systems to push for your ideas, and so on are all much more impotent and wasteful. Just set a good example, and do it occasionally too, if you have to, right?
Even if the most extreme politician-skeptics here distrust or distance themselves from Ron Paul, they can simply just take this simple motto and leave the rest.
John James:I think that just like everyone else who rags on anything that’s popular or that other people seem to like or get excited about, you want to seem above the fray, and better than everyone else. It’s a holier than thou thing to be able to say “I can’t believe you read/watch/believe that crap.” So when you see things you agree with actually gaining traction and popularity you have to go into attack mode (which is really defense mode). You have to attack the fact that people are enthusiastic about something as a way to defend yourself against the possibility of actually being part of something recognized and appreciated by more than a small handful of people. It's almost like you work against the movement, not wanting things to catch on and become widely accepted because you want to stay "fringe" and "kooky" because it's what makes you different. It's what supposedly makes you smarter, more interesting and better than everyone else. If you don't want to help make someone spreading the ideas that Ron Paul does more popular, fine. But don't get in the way of those of us who actually want more people to join our way of thinking.
If you don't want to help make someone spreading the ideas that Ron Paul does more popular, fine. But don't get in the way of those of us who actually want more people to join our way of thinking.
No one is getting in your way, and if your panties get in a knot over some low key comments on an internet forum, your movement is completely doomed.
It is hard for some of us to buy back into what Ron Paul is selling to the less libertarian masses, and some of us know that ultimately we need to get past Paulist Constitutionalism if we really believe in libertarian ideals. That doesn't mean that Paul doesn't have his role to play, but once you know the state is a sick joke and a bad acid trip, it is incredibly hard to get motivated about someone's campaign in the context of pretending the political system is real or has any legitimacy.
Just as you feel compelled to pull people towards Paul's message, I feel compelled to pull you deeper towards my message. There is no state, there is no Constitution and there are no citizens. The act of voting is completely insane.
Neodoxy's post was asking why we may think a Paul presidency would be a good thing. Not merely him running, but him winning. People are so shallow-minded that they would likely blame anything bad that would happen during Paul's tenure on libertarianism as an ideology when
That is a worry but:
a) he won't win
b) if anything there is at least a decent chance, better than anyone else, that he will end all the f***ing imperialism and war mongering in hurry.. While liberterianism may get a bad name, that is worth it not thinking of all that senseless killing. For me anyway.
How does that compare with 2007?
To the extent that real terrorism is caused by the governments foreign policy, a real terrorist attack would be less likely and as commander in chief, he does have the ability to bring the camoflauged men with guns home. That's huge for the economy.
It's silly to be totally disatisfied with anything but anarchy- life is messy and watching Ron Paul stirring up things is fun. I'm pretty excited for the upcoming elections- the Ron Paul contingent should be much larger and better educated this time around.
"While liberterianism may get a bad name, that is worth it not thinking of all that senseless killing. For me anyway."
I tend to agree, William, but the goal for me is a stateless society in some form because I think it could make the world an exponentially better place. As Paul himself recognizes, the imperialism of the U.S. can't last much longer; we can just wait it out at this point before it folds in on itself.
John James:For once I'd like someone to explain to me any sort of gain to be had from this non-stop, unwavering barrage of negativity from these elitist anarchists. I don't get the purpose behind this attitude of "you guys are idiots if you think anything will ever change, Ron Paul has no shot against the establishment, no one will ever consider us anything but crazy kooks, you're wasting your time even talking to statist idiots, blah blah blah". I mean I understand the appeal of the "I'm so much better than everyone else" thing, but do you really have nothing better to do with your time than sit around and complain?
Yes, because my whole position relies on me being better than everybody else. To hell with those who arent anarchists or do not think like me!!! I mostly got a laugh at the last sentence from your quote above (in bold) because that is exactly what you are doing, i guess, just in a different way.... Let me ask you what you get from bashing my position? I was clearly not bashing on Libertyandlife's position, just simply trying to understand his position a little better and critiquing it from my point of view. There is no need to take this debate personally... This actually reminds me of some Bill O'Reiley debates where if his opponet disagrees with him, he goes ape shit..
John James:If you don't think promoting liberty is useful, then don't. But don't come around here and try to shit on everyone else. You're just like all the whiners who bitch about the Institute mentioning pop culture items...you like your anti-mainstream status and relish in having your little non-conformist corner and being able to tell everyone that everything they think they know is wrong.
Ha, I guess it doesnt help me by saying that I love existentialist philosophy. But seriously, I am just holding to what I believe is right according to me. I am not shitting on anyone else, if people choose to accept what I have to say, great, if not, great. The purpose of these threads is to have discussions on these topics and to see what people have to say about it...the purpose of these threads are not to have one sided agreements to issues all the time, so sorry if I am not one to agree with you. You are the one that is, in fact, shitting on my ideals... why? because I do not think like you on this issue?
John James:It's almost like you work against the movement, not wanting things to catch on and become widely accepted because you want to stay "fringe" and "kooky" because it's what makes you different. It's what supposedly makes you smarter, more interesting and better than everyone else."
Yay, more assertions about me! Fantastic :)
John James:If you don't want to help make someone spreading the ideas that Ron Paul does more popular, fine. But don't get in the way of those of us who actually want more people to join our way of thinking.
Wow, what a very libertarian thing to say! Your whole post is a bunch of assertions about me, which is why I am not taking it too seriously...Now if you do not mind, I was talking to Libertyandlife, who is a bit more civil in debate :)
@Eric:
Let me clarify; I am just saying I see no reason to get down on anyone enthusiastic about Paul, or getting involved with the campaign. And if in the odd chance he happens to win, at least there is a chance that something good could come out of it.
"Because it pulls people into libertarianism, influences the political sphere, and makes us look less crazy."
No, a Ron Paul candidacy is great, he might have done more for liberty in his single candidacy than anyone else in the last two decades, but he's getting legitimately way too likely to win for comfort. I'm saying what good could come out of his presidency than the total destruction of libertarianism in the public eye. If he was elected what is it that he could do?
As William said he would pull out overseas, now god forbid that there's a terrorist attack during Paul's presidency because you can imagine what the idiots will say and want to do, they'll say it was all because troops were pulled out so they couldn't keep us safe, the United States would become even more militant and even if there was no terrorist strike the chances are that the next president would just move right back in to other nations
Possible long term loss, short term gain, long term at least indifferent
Now let's get into what would really destroy him. Let's say that he wants to actually deal with the debt. How is he going to go about this? He will save some, but not enough from the military savings. So he tries to cut social programs which will just grow in expense in the next few years. Now either millions of poor people on welfare with Medicaid, or thousands of old people on social security get royally pissed off, they are legitimately worse off than they otherwise would be and the nation can see that and feel their plight. In either situation Paul is discredited and kicked out of office next term.
Huge Loss for libertarianism.
Ron Paul legalizes marijuana, he gains support from many democrats, loses a good deal from those who voted for him, conservatives
Next term loss for libertarians, overall probably victory
Ron Paul tries to legalize some other more serious drug, it almost certainly fails
He loses all around support, probably not reelected
Ron Paul Ends the patriot act
Victory, gains support from democrats
Ron Paul cracks down on immigration
Looses support from democrats, hurts American economy, loses face with libertarians, gets Hispanic vote fiercely against him, large libertarian loss
Ron Paul Repeals healthcare bill
Healthcare remains crappy, looses major support from dems. People further blame republicans and libertarians libertarian loss.
Even if he reformed the tax problems that promote health insurance this is a long term, not a short term fix, and any gains he makes in this area will almost certainly be screwed up by the next guy
Ron Paul cuts taxes
Huge increase in debt and deficit , increase in short term prosperity, increase in the interest rate which harms long term investment and growth. Who can tell the total outcome, but the debt itself will probably make it negative
Libertarian loss, makes libertarians look extremely irresponsible
Ron Paul ends the fed
Significant short run financial problems, huge anger among intellectuals and economists, foreign exchange issues, banks begin to engage in risky lending practices as the reality of the free market has not caught up to them yet, deflation occurs which is very negative because people are not used with how to deal with it, real tax rates increase and the debt starts to appreciate in value each year.
Major libertarian loss
So tell me, what good can come of the 45th president of The United States of America, Mr. President Ron Ernest Paul?
I honestly don't think any bad could come out of Ron Paul being elected. I just don't think he will.
Why?
I had to type this 3 times cause of this forum software.
He won't win because either not enough people vote for him, or the powers that be, the government and it's cronies, will find some way around him winning.
If he does get elected though, I can't see anything bad coming out him being elected. You have to remember, even if has policies which may look like turn people off, if enough people had supported him, that means a majority of people have supported freedom. Just look at Obama:
A majority voted for him. Nevertheless, for all the crap he's done, a good portion of the public still support him. Also Paul has not been elected. We shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot so early.
"Ron Paul legalizes marijuana, he gains support from many democrats, loses a good deal from those who voted for him, conservatives
Next term loss for libertarians, overall probably victory"
Hmm what matters more here? Reelection or actually doing something good like ending the drug war? Let's think real, real hard....
"overall probably victory"
"Hmm what matters more here? Reelection or actually doing something good like ending the drug war? Let's think real, real hard...."
I agree. You quoted me agreeing. I don't care that you disagree with me but that you quoted me agreeing with you. Let's think really hard, what's more important, bringing more to the ranks of libertarians until theres a large enough group of us to actually make a big societal change, or a handful of good things and a lot of short run bad things many of which on both sides will just be reversed and which will destroy the name of libertarianism?
Neodoxy:I agree. You quoted me agreeing. I don't care that you disagree with me but that you quoted me agreeing with you. Let's think really hard, what's more important, bringing more to the ranks of libertarians until theres a large enough group of us to actually make a big societal change, or a handful of good things and a lot of short run bad things many of which on both sides will just be reversed and which will destroy the name of libertarianism?
Libertarianism as it is, has no brand. It has no name. It is whatever people want it to be in their heads. I'm talking the value of libertarianism, I think what libertarianism is, is quite explicit, although many cowards will try to argue otherwise.
That said, you're expressing values, and what one party values may not be what another party values. There is no libertarian class interest except more liberty. What liberties those might be are completely subjective.
"Libertarianism as it is, has no brand. It has no name. It is whatever people want it to be in their heads. I'm talking the value of libertarianism, I think what libertarianism is, is quite explicit, although many cowards will try to argue otherwise."
I agree
"That said, you're expressing values, and what one party values may not be what another party values. There is no libertarian class interest except more liberty. What liberties those might be are completely subjective."
Yes, but I doubt that most libertarians would sacrifice a larger chance at a libertarian future for the repeal of the patriot act, a short run decrease in foreign intervention and the legalization of marijuana, I could be wrong, but even if I am not I know I do not prefer this eventuality, and I will try to convince others of this as well.
Neodoxy:In either situation Paul is discredited and kicked out of office next term.
This is the the main idea. Paul has made it clear and said it many times: nothing will really change until people reconsider the role of government in their lives. It doesn't matter if he wins, if the majority of the people don't believe in the message of liberty he wont win and even if he does he won't last long.
Unfortunately most Americans are not libertarians. The message needs to be spread and more people need to agree with it before any real change will happen. As others have noted support has been rising but it's still pretty small in the grand scheme of things.
freeradicals: Unfortunately most Americans are not libertarians. The message needs to be spread and more people need to agree with it before any real change will happen. As others have noted support has been rising but it's still pretty small in the grand scheme of things.
You extrapolate (predict) linearly, while ideas spread non-linearly. Even if Ron Paul affected no laws during his campaign or eventual presidency, the mere presence of such issues in debates, media, and congress would be a tremendous achievement towards educating the majority about the concept and benefits of freedom. Even the longest journey starts with a small first step.
It's all about education people. We know Ron Paul will not win. All that matters is exposure. When is the last time the US had a genuine liberty candidate? When is the last time the US had a presidential candidate with any grasp of economics, let alone not being a Keynesian ape? When is the last time the US had a presidential candidate who didn't pine to etch their name in history with the blood and wealth of their "countrymen"?
I was a Neocon before 2007. Now I'm a market anarchist. Most people I know who support Ron Paul have a similar story and at the very least become minarchists. There is value in his candidacy.
What if the planets should align and the hell freeze over for a Ron Paul presidential victory? It would be brilliant, not because Ron Paul would be able to "accomplish much", but it would mean that a very large portion of the US agrees with his positions and is willing to try them. Ron Paul wouldn't be able to repeal laws, no. SO WHAT?
If laws mattered, the USA wouldn't have even a quarter of its problems. The executive controls the military, all enforcement agencies, and just about all bereaucracies. The legislative branch is largely just theatre and has been for many years. A Ron Paul presidency would mean wars ended, perpetual government "snow days", bad laws not enforced, the Fed getting roasted, and bad laws getting vetoed.
Some people will hate these kinds of actions, but if a figure like Ron Paul should get elected, just as many if not more should approve of them and eventually learn their wisdom through the exposure that their previous political and economic realities were total lies. At worst, libertarianism goes from being a fringe ideology to a publically "discredited" ideology--as if credibility matters anyway. Look at the 20th century, then ask why young people still cling, flock, and convert to communism?
Tu ne cede malis people. A Ron Paul candidacy win or lose embraces this concept.
z1235:You extrapolate (predict) linearly, while ideas spread non-linearly. Even if Ron Paul affected no laws during his campaign or eventual presidency, the mere presence of such issues in debates, media, and congress would be a tremendous achievement towards educating the majority about the concept and benefits of freedom. Even the longest journey starts with a small first step.
I agree, and, this is more beneficial than pushing libertarian law before people are exposed to the message. Otherwise people will get the wrong idea and it could backfire.
liberty student:Just as you feel compelled to pull people towards Paul's message, I feel compelled to pull you deeper towards my message. There is no state, there is no Constitution and there are no citizens. The act of voting is completely insane.
Well let me give you a piece of advice in Persuasion 101. You're not going to pull people toward your way of thinking by being a negative prick.
Was I being a negative prick?
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:Yes, because my whole position relies on me being better than everybody else. To hell with those who arent anarchists or do not think like me!!! I mostly got a laugh at the last sentence from your quote above (in bold) because that is exactly what you are doing, i guess, just in a different way.... Let me ask you what you get from bashing my position?
As North said (in an article directly related to this topic, actually) "My attitude is that you should treat big-mouth dolts as big-mouth dolts". Along those same lines, I think it is worth it to address people who do what I'm talking about and presence it...calling it out for what it is. What I get from it is the audience (and possibly the person doing it) are given a dose of reality as to what is really going on, so that at least others are made aware that they aren't listening to anything other than self-preservation negativity.
I was clearly not bashing on Libertyandlife's position, just simply trying to understand his position a little better and critiquing it from my point of view. There is no need to take this debate personally...
I wasn't personally offended, I just think it's ridiculous. You weren't trying understand anything. The question asked was "what good could a President Ron Paul do?" And you went into a series of posts talking belittling the idea, and finishing it off with a condescending "support him how"? You weren't looking for an answer to that question. You were looking for something else to attack.
But seriously, I am just holding to what I believe is right according to me. I am not shitting on anyone else, if people choose to accept what I have to say, great, if not, great.
How the hell does the fact that people are free to choose whether they accept what you have to say mean you're not shitting on anyone else?
The purpose of these threads is to have discussions on these topics and to see what people have to say about it...the purpose of these threads are not to have one sided agreements to issues all the time, so sorry if I am not one to agree with you. You are the one that is, in fact, shitting on my ideals... why? because I do not think like you on this issue?
No one said the purpose was for total agreement. It's not the fact that you disagree, it's that you're not trying to have a discussion. Maybe I read the tone of that last post of yours wrong, but it sound to me like you were doing what a lot of other people around here are doing: just trying to be a prick.
It was more a description of people who do what it sounded like you were doing. If you really weren't doing it then perhaps you just need to work on your conversation skills.
I'm assuming that was sarcasm, so I'd like to know what exactly is "non-libertarian" about suggesting you not get in the way of people who want to make libertarian ideas more popular.
liberty student:Was I being a negative prick?
A lot of times you can be.
John James: liberty student:Was I being a negative prick? A lot of times you can be.
Can you give one example from those "lot of times"?
You're looking pretty hard if you have to go back to month old threads JJ. Still want to claim I am a negative prick when you can't easily point to one instance of it?
I think you owe a couple of us an apology for you being making claims you can't back up. That would be the responsible thing for you to do.