A salient LRC article on this very topic.
"The party hacks and establishment media have consistently floated trial balloons and repeatedly questioned Ron Paul about will he make a third party run if he fails to secure the GOP nomination. They want him to run third party."
Bingo. All you have to do is listen to Mr. Leg Thrill himself:
From the vid description:
I'm not quite sure what this is...whether Matthews just couldn't find another way to try to land an anti-Ron Paul punch, or whether he actually thinks he can goad an entire Presidential campaign into changing its entire strategy with a single last-second throwaway spur. Does Crazy Chris really think encouraging Republican candidates to run 3rd party will work as a way to get Obama four more years? Or was he just reaching for some way to stop the irrepressible Wead media train? Either way, one word comes to mind: desperate.
I highly urge everyone to read that LRC article, and pass it along. It provides an important outlook that is the only winning strategy for the future of liberty in this country.
Thurs. 12/04/12 00:07 EDT.post #138 John James:I highly urge everyone to read that LRC article, and pass it along. It provides an important outlook that is the only winning strategy for the future of liberty in this country.I read it. Ron Holland:This young women speaks for millions of us who will not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 unless he unilaterally guarantees us he will advance our freedom agenda.I think anyone who believes Romney's "guarantees" will find that, once again, he has been lied to and duped."We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth." - Sydney Schanberg. Ron Holland:Mitt, we know you want very much to be President of the United States.Perhaps not, though. Perhaps "the plan" is another four years of Obama, which is why Romney is the "chosen one": He'd lose. It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He'd win.Holland suggests a third party candidacy is "political insanity and would constitute an establishment promoted death trap for millions of Ron Paul supporters and liberty advocates," and points to a (depressing) chart of "Libertarian Party Results in U.S. presidential elections."I think it's quite possible that, were Ron Paul to run Libertarian, that party would see election results considerably better than anything previously achieved. But this is not, in my opinion, what is important.What is important is the spread of ideas. Ron Paul has publicly reiterated the "power of an idea whose time has come," and as a propagator and promoter of the freedom philosophy, he has been wildly successful. In this sense, he has already won. His campaign, sites like Mises.org combined with the internet, and all the newly-spawned libertarians kicking intellectual ass every day, are turning what were once a few smoldering embers into a raging forest fire.I'm both optimistic and pyromanic.
John James:I highly urge everyone to read that LRC article, and pass it along. It provides an important outlook that is the only winning strategy for the future of liberty in this country.
Ron Holland:This young women speaks for millions of us who will not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 unless he unilaterally guarantees us he will advance our freedom agenda.
Ron Holland:Mitt, we know you want very much to be President of the United States.
MMMark:I think anyone who believes Romney's "guarantees" will find that, once again, he has been lied to and duped. "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth." - Sydney Schanberg.
I have no idea how you could read that entire piece and think that author is "desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."
"Mitt, we know you want very much to be President of the United States." Perhaps not, though. Perhaps "the plan" is another four years of Obama, which is why Romney is the "chosen one": He'd lose. It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He'd win.
Perhaps not, though. Perhaps "the plan" is another four years of Obama, which is why Romney is the "chosen one": He'd lose. It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He'd win.
That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because "he'd win".
I think it's quite possible that, were Ron Paul to run Libertarian, that party would see election results considerably better than anything previously achieved.
Oh? And what would that be? 1.7%?
But this is not, in my opinion, what is important.
Well I should sure as hell hope not.
What is important is the spread of ideas. Ron Paul has publicly reiterated the "power of an idea whose time has come," and as a propagator and promoter of the freedom philosophy, he has been wildly successful. In this sense, he has already won.
Uh. Isn't that like...exactly what the girl in the video in the article said?
His campaign, sites like Mises.org combined with the internet, and all the newly-spawned libertarians kicking intellectual ass every day, are turning what were once a few smoldering embers into a raging forest fire. I'm both optimistic and pyromanic.
His campaign, sites like Mises.org combined with the internet, and all the newly-spawned libertarians kicking intellectual ass every day, are turning what were once a few smoldering embers into a raging forest fire.
I'm both optimistic and pyromanic.
Is this supposed to be a joke? Are you mocking some over-the-top Ron Paul-sympathetic writer that I'm unaware of? Or are you just mocking us?
John, I for one would really appreciate it if you would please outline what you think is the winning strategy for "the future of liberty" in the United States. Also, while you're at it, could you please explain just what you mean by "the future of liberty", as well as explaining why you're apparently concerned only with the United States and not the rest of the world.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
@ JJ: I've read Dr. Paul's Restore America Now plan. Immediately, he wants to extend all tax cuts, he wants to eliminate all CG taxes, especially on gold and silver, and reduce the maximum corporate tax rate to 15%. In the long term, he wants repeal of the 16th Amendment while replacing it nothing. I assume that means he wants to go back to low tariffs. Let me know if any of that is inaccurate.
2nd part, I do have a practical plan: I've said for a long time that a confederal tax system is the least painful tax system and that the Federal government should not directly collect from people, but rather from the States (or even counties) based upon their population. The Federal government should be stripped of all power to tax people directly.
As for the national debt, it should be distributed to the States based upon how many electoral votes they have. It would then be up to each State whether to repudiate its share or pay off its share. The national parks system, other national lands, and the DoD's weapons should be sold off so entrepreneurs can invest in that land and so that the Federal government doesn't have to tax to run them. Then that money could go towards getting us back on a monometallic standard (gold or silver without nationalist coinage policy) and the subtreasury system.
I'm sorry I'm not that bright.
As for sources, I'll see what I can do. I'm not lying though.
Thurs. 12/04/12 12:08 EDT.post #139 John James:I have no idea how you could read that entire piece and think that author is "desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."It's not clear, but he might be. He equivocates.Under the sub-head Both Political Party Leaderships Are Controlled By Special Interests, he suggests that both parties represent, not "the people" but rather "only special interests," and also In every election they blindly cheered the election year rhetoric, voted as they were told and then were somehow surprised after each election that despite the same old campaign promises their candidates were little different from the Democrats.The way I read this, Holland is saying that the rhetoric and promises of either party are not to be believed. I agree. But then:What would the Romney campaign need to offer the Ron Paul Revolution forces to get a majority of our support? Speaking only for myself, naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment would get my attention. This would need to be followed by campaign pledges for real action on the Fed audit and a required declaration of war for future neocon inspired foreign military actions.Also, under the sub-head Will Ron Paulers Vote For Romney?, Holland writes This young women speaks for millions of us who will not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 unless he unilaterally guarantees us he will advance our freedom agenda. He can do this by naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment, followed by campaign pledges for real action on the Fed audit and a required declaration of war for future foreign military actions.But that is not what "this young woman " (YouTube user ABillyRock) said. ABillyRock didn't say Paul supporters would vote for Romney in exchange for "guarantees." She said that "I welcome losing if the winning team is not supporting the principles this country was founded on."A "guarantee" from Romney isn't the same thing as "the winning team...supporting the principles this country was founded on." For Holland to suggest it is, is either naive, or disingenuous. By quoting Schanberg, I give his intentions the benefit of the doubt: Holland is desperate to believe that this time, Romney would tell Ron Paul supporters the truth.
John James:I have no idea how you could read that entire piece and think that author is "desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."
In every election they blindly cheered the election year rhetoric, voted as they were told and then were somehow surprised after each election that despite the same old campaign promises their candidates were little different from the Democrats.
What would the Romney campaign need to offer the Ron Paul Revolution forces to get a majority of our support? Speaking only for myself, naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment would get my attention. This would need to be followed by campaign pledges for real action on the Fed audit and a required declaration of war for future neocon inspired foreign military actions.
This young women speaks for millions of us who will not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 unless he unilaterally guarantees us he will advance our freedom agenda. He can do this by naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment, followed by campaign pledges for real action on the Fed audit and a required declaration of war for future foreign military actions.
John James:That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because "he'd win".
John James:Oh? And what would that be? 1.7%?
John James:Uh. Isn't that like...exactly what the girl in the video in the article said?
John James:Is this supposed to be a joke? Are you mocking some over-the-top Ron Paul-sympathetic writer that I'm unaware of? Or are you just mocking us?
No2statism:I've read Dr. Paul's Restore America Now plan. Immediately, he wants to extend all tax cuts, he wants to eliminate all CG taxes, especially on gold and silver, and reduce the maximum corporate tax rate to 15%.
Hmmm. All things the FairTax would do.
In the long term, he wants repeal of the 16th Amendment while replacing it nothing. I assume that means he wants to go back to low tariffs.
And Rand Paul doesn't? Please provide the proof of this.
This is called "capitation tax". Robert Wenzel of EPJ (eventually) ended up endorsing this when Peter Schiff pressed him multiple times to offer something better than a sales tax on his radio show. We discussed this in the Cain 9-9-9 plan thread (mostly starting about here). You can read there to learn more about it, but somehow I get the feeling you may have actually seen this discussion or heard Wenzel yourself because you sound just like him.
When he's initially asked for a tax plan, he gives the non-answer "I want taxes as low as possible"/"whatever brings in the least revenue"/"as close to zero as possible", etc. Just like you did. He gives that non-answer multiple times until Schiff basically pins him down and makes him offer an actual answer...and Wenzel coughs up the capitation idea.
For anyone interested, that thread offers plenty of discussion on this bad idea.
As for the national debt, it should be distributed to the States based upon how many electoral votes they have. It would then be up to each State whether to repudiate its share or pay off its share.
So the Federal government runs up this tab, that's mathematically impossible to pay off, and your suggestion is to just dump it off on the states. Okie dokie.
The national parks system, other national lands, and the DoD's weapons should be sold off so entrepreneurs can invest in that land and so that the Federal government doesn't have to tax to run them. Then that money could go towards getting us back on a monometallic standard (gold or silver without nationalist coinage policy) and the subtreasury system.
Would it not be much simpler to just allow competing currencies? Why go back to the same standard that was so easily abandoned the first time?
MMMark:A "guarantee" from Romney isn't the same thing as "the winning team...supporting the principles this country was founded on." For Holland to suggest it is, is either naive, or disingenuous. By quoting Schanberg, I give his intentions the benefit of the doubt: Holland is desperate to believe that this time, Romney would tell Ron Paul supporters the truth.
I agree that is a mischaracterization of what the woman said, but I do not get the impression that this guy cares much what Romney does with respect to making concessions with Paul. To me it read that he was simply saying "If Romney even wants to think about getting a Paul-supporter vote, he'd have to agree to something like this...and that would 'get my attention'". For one thing, I don't remember him saying anything about "Romney does this, and I will vote for him"...just that "this is the kind of thing he would have to do before I would even consider it."
And he does spend time talking about how campaign promises cannot be trusted and such. I don't think he's desperate to believe Romney. It sounded to me like he was just considering all possibilities and giving his take on it, and not ruling anything out....not speaking in absolutes...like Ron Paul says.
And for the record promising to not raise taxes or something like that is not the same as having someone as your running mate. I guarantee you if Rand Paul becomes the VP candidate, he's not going to get fired right after the election. That would be suicide for Romney and the Party. You might be able to say "no new taxes" during a campaign and then raise taxes while in office a couple years later, but you can't name someone as your VP to basically ensure an entire sect of the electorate, and then remove him from the post for no reason. And I think the same would go for a Ron Paul cabinet position. Sure it's not as public as the VP post, but there would be enough people who knew about it that it would basically be just as big of a scandal as firing the VP. (Plus, the Vice President of the United States would be on staff making sure the appointment went through...and if not, he would be the one telling the news organizations all about how the POTUS went back on a deal. Again. Political suicide for the GOP.)
In short, something like a Rand VP, Ron Secretary would not be a "promise" that Romney could just easily go back on like any 'ol campaign promise. If that deal was made, it's pretty much guaranteed it would go through.
Do you mean you don't think Paul would beat Obama, or do you mean that there is "no one" who would hate to see that happen?
I mean the idea of Paul winning is not the reason people hate him. I know millions of Americans who would elated regardless of who won, so long as he has an "R" by his name.
For example, yes. I would call a 55% increase "significantly better."
Exactly my point. 55% of 1.1%. Aka, nothing.
John James:Uh. Isn't that like...exactly what the girl in the video in the article said?Pretty close.
So why bother repeating it as if you were saying something new...let alone something that was contradicting the article?
No, no, and no. I am genuinely excited about libertarianism's growth in popularity during the last twenty-five years. Why do you ask these questions?
Because that whole comment was just a whole lot of nothing. It was some of the most over-the-top fluffery I've ever read, and it's exactly the kind of thing I would expect a very clever writer to say if he were trying to poke fun at the excitement displayed by Ron Paul supporters.
It doesn't at all match up with the tone or direction of the rest of your post, and seems completely out of place. It just made the most sense as a joke as opposed to something serious.
That's great if you really feel that way. I just don't see what that has to do with running 3rd party. As I said in before in this very thread, Ron Paul has already educated millions, and will continue to do that up through the election, and probably even after. He doesn't have to waste his time running a losing campaign for a 3rd party to do that. I fail to see the argument there. Multiple people in this thread have basically argued that Paul should run third party as a way to educate people and wake them up to the ideas of liberty or something. As if he's so far been unsuccessful in doing that, or that somehow running a losing campaign in a third party would somehow make him more effective at it. It's just nonsense.
Running as a 3rd party candidate has virtually no bearing on bringing more people to the philosophy of liberty...and as I said, quite possibly would do nothing more than alienate a lot of people and turn them off to him and his message.
I think the most important point the article makes is that the entire 3rd party existence is nothing more than a matrix...an illusion of choice and option that is welcomed by the establishment to keep those of us who operate outside of the Hillary Clinton/John McCain spectrum at bay...ineffective, and irrelevant.
They want the movement to go 3rd party because it will mean the certain defeat of it. They are fearful because the movement as infiltrated their party (by playing by their own rules) and is threatening to take it over. And I think the author is right, as long as we are not distracted and seduced or fooled into going that losing route of 3rd party, we will take over the GOP and be in a position to change the entire country, and effectively history. This obviously won't happen in one election, but it is happening.
The future of the movement (if it is to have any future) is not in some 3rd party. It is in transforming the GOP. And all this talk of "Ron Paul needs to go third party so he can educate millions" does nothing but undermine that (and make people sound naive and actually kind of stupid). It doesn't make sense, and is basically one of the worst ideas. And if you want evidence for this, all you have to do is listen to what the establishment is saying about it (exhibit A is right at the top of this page).
@ JJ I had thought the FairTax gave the government more revenue than Dr. Paul's plan did. I guess I was mistaken.
I don't know what Dr. Rand Paul wants to do now. I heard that he once supported the FairTax. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. It's very possible he has the same tax views as his father does.
What I call the "confederal tax system" was what Jefferson recommended for the Articles of Confederation, but I'm glad Wenzel likes it also. I think it's the least harmful system of taxation because it's the most decentralized. I'd rather the government take 100% of the first $5k everyone makes than for them to have the FairTax or do what they do currently. I agree with Rothbard that fairness is subjective so that's why I don't worry if the poor are taxed more or if the rich are taxed more. Like he said, it's the ethics that matter, not utility and not fairness. It's most ethical when society is robbed the least which is why I come to that conclusion. It's ultimately the state vs. society.
As for competing currencies, I don't think it's the best idea, even though it's better than what we have now. I don't really think the state should be printing/coining/creating money.
Thurs. 12/04/12 17:49 EDT.post #140 John James:I guarantee you if Rand Paul becomes the VP candidate, he's not going to get fired right after the election.Are you assuming here that Romney/Paul beats Obama/Biden? In that case, I won't argue with you. However, the truth of that assumption is not obvious to me. I think a Romney/Rand Paul ticket, with a cabinet appointment to Ron, would be far less attractive to "a significantly large" number of Ron Paul supporters than the prospect of Ron as the GOP presidential nominee. I'll go further and say that "a significantly large" number of Ron Paul supporters wouldn't even vote for a Romney/Rand Paul ticket.My assumption is that this election is a "fixed fight," with Obama the "chosen" winner. Any "concessions" Romney might make to Paul supporters would not, in my opinion, change that outcome. Even if Romney/Paul did beat Obama, I believe that no meaningful change to the status quo would result. So it's "heads I win, tails you lose." The prospect of Ron Paul as the nominee, however, offers a third alternative to either "heads" or "tails," and I think it's worth holding out for, promises of proven liars notwithstanding. John James:I mean the idea of Paul winning is not the reason people hate him. I know millions of Americans who would elated regardless of who won, so long as he has an "R" by his name.I don't argue with what you just said, but recall, I didn't say "people" or "millions of Americans" hate Ron Paul. I said It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He'd win. So, certain people hate Ron Paul, i.e., the people to whom Ron Paul, and especially a Ron Paul win, is "dangerous."
John James:I guarantee you if Rand Paul becomes the VP candidate, he's not going to get fired right after the election.
John James:I mean the idea of Paul winning is not the reason people hate him. I know millions of Americans who would elated regardless of who won, so long as he has an "R" by his name.
John James:Exactly my point. 55% of 1.1%. Aka, nothing.
John James:So why bother repeating it as if you were saying something new...let alone something that was contradicting the article?
John James:... we will take over the GOP and be in a position to change the entire country, and effectively history. This obviously won't happen in one election, but it is happening. ... The future of the movement (if it is to have any future) is not in some 3rd party. It is in transforming the GOP.
John James:Because that whole comment was just a whole lot of nothing. It was some of the most over-the-top fluffery I've ever read, and it's exactly the kind of thing I would expect a very clever writer to say if he were trying to poke fun at the excitement displayed by Ron Paul supporters. ... That's great if you really feel that way.
John James:Multiple people in this thread have basically argued that Paul should run third party as a way to educate people and wake them up to the ideas of liberty or something.
Thurs. 12/04/12 18:16 EDT.post #141 No2statism:As for competing currencies, I don't think it's the best idea, even though it's better than what we have now. I don't really think the state should be printing/coining/creating money.My understanding of "competing currencies" is that it's not (necessarily) a replacement for, but rather an alternative to, "the state ... printing/coining/creating money." The idea is not to replace one universally-imposed system with another, but to allow, via competition, persons to decide for themselves which currency best suits their individual purposes. So what you, or I, or anyone thinks "the best idea" might be...is irrelevant. Competition means that you can choose what is "best" for you and I can choose what is "best" for me. You might choose differently than I.
No2statism:As for competing currencies, I don't think it's the best idea, even though it's better than what we have now. I don't really think the state should be printing/coining/creating money.
"Best" is a valuation, value is subjective, and competition allows the expression of individual (subjective) values.
No2statism:What I call the "confederal tax system" was what Jefferson recommended for the Articles of Confederation, but I'm glad Wenzel likes it also.
I don't necessarily know if Wenzel promotes it in the same way you do, as he said nothing about the states being the intermediary between the Feds and the Federal tax revenue, he just said basically count everyone over 18 years old, and just divide.
I would also be interested to see the proof that Jefferson recommended this type of tax system, as one of Schiff's points was that the Founding Fathers didn't like the capitation method, which he talks about here. Again, I recommend you listen to that interview and go through that thread.
I think it's the least harmful system of taxation because it's the most decentralized.
A lack of decentralization doesn't exactly seem to me to be the most harmful aspect of the tax system. Not to mention, I fail to see what that has to do with anything you're talking about. How exactly does taxing the states based on population, (and essentially forcing the states to do the dirty work of collecting) bring about less harm done to the taxpayer?
And what's more, if anything, just off hand it would seem the Federal government would be free-er to get larger, as it directs the tax rate, but then gets to turn around and shove the collection costs onto the state governments. I.e., it collects all the revenue, but doesn't even incur any of the cost of enforcing and actually collecting the tax.
I'd rather the government take 100% of the first $5k everyone makes than for them to have the FairTax or do what they do currently.
Great plan. Take away 25% of the income of someone who makes $20k/yr (and fully half of the income of someone who makes $10k/yr).
Yeah. Least harmful.
Good luck selling that to the people who have incomes in that ballpark, and those who care about them.
No2statism:I agree with Rothbard that fairness is subjective so that's why I don't worry if the poor are taxed more or if the rich are taxed more. Like he said, it's the ethics that matter, not utility and not fairness. It's most ethical when society is robbed the least which is why I come to that conclusion. It's ultimately the state vs. society.
I think that's a very naive and simple way of looking at things. If you're going to invoke ethics I think it's quite ridiculous to simply say "least amount of money taken overall = most ethical. Method doesn't matter."
Jeez you're just like Wenzel. Yes, we could make the argument there shouldn't even be a state (period)...that doesn't do anything to inform how to go about moving in that direction or improving things.
Yes it would be great if "the state wasn't printing/coining/creating money." It would also be great if it wasn't collecting any taxes (i.e. if there was a 0% tax rate). But you're not going to get there over night. So simply resting on the laurels of "well the state shouldn't be printing money" and "well taxes should be as close to zero as possible" is completely useless.
And besides, if that's the argument you're going to use against the idea of competing currencies, then I'll just use your same argument against you and your suggestion of a gold standard.
I don't think you've really thought about this all the way through. Do some reading on banking suggestions offered by Austrians. You might start with the Mises Wiki page for free banking (and the links provided in the "see also" and "links" sections).
MMMark offers an important message on that.
P.S.
Your hero Dr. Ron Paul advocates competing currencies.
Hey, folks, I got the obvious solution: the State has no legitimate claim to any money which it has not received either as a gift or through voluntary exchange just like anybody else! So, since it has no business taking money in the first place, the question of how high taxes should be is easy! 0%
Clayton -
Thurs. 12/04/12 20:10 EDT.post #144 Clayton:Hey, folks, I got the obvious solution: the State has no legitimate claim to any money which it has not received either as a gift or through voluntary exchange just like anybody else!But then who would build the roads?
Clayton:Hey, folks, I got the obvious solution: the State has no legitimate claim to any money which it has not received either as a gift or through voluntary exchange just like anybody else!
Peter and Jack will build the roads.
MMMark:Are you assuming here that Romney/Paul beats Obama/Biden?
Well, I guess for the hypothetical to be at all relevant one would have to make that assumption, as there would be nothing to "fire" Rand Paul from if Romney did not win the election, would there?
I think a Romney/Rand Paul ticket, with a cabinet appointment to Ron, would be far less attractive to "a significantly large" number of Ron Paul supporters than the prospect of Ron as the GOP presidential nominee.
Did you actually just take the time to type that a significantly large number of Ron Paul supporters would prefer Ron Paul to be the GOP nominee over Mitt Romney?
I'll go further and say that "a significantly large" number of Ron Paul supporters wouldn't even vote for a Romney/Rand Paul ticket.
I'll go ahead and use your line: "the truth of that assumption is not obvious to me."
The prospect of Ron Paul as the nominee, however, offers a third alternative to either "heads" or "tails," and I think it's worth holding out for, promises of proven liars notwithstanding.
If you're talking about Ron Paul being the GOP nominee, I don't even see why you're trying to argue with me about this. That was my whole point from the beginning. This whole conversation started because at least three people in this thread alone said that Ron Paul should go 3rd party. My entire argument has been that that's a terrible idea. A "salient article" articulating this very point was linked to, and I highlighted a piece of it, and ever since then you have seemingly been trying to argue against it...but end up basically echoing everything that I've said, as well as what was actually argued in the very article you're allegedly trying to argue against.
MMMark:I don't argue with what you just said, but recall, I didn't say "people" or "millions of Americans" hate Ron Paul. I said It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He'd win. So, certain people hate Ron Paul, i.e., the people to whom Ron Paul, and especially a Ron Paul win, is "dangerous."
First of all, if you don't think "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB " = "people" or "millions of Americans", I'm not sure what to say. Second, my argument is not who hates Ron Paul, but why they hate him.
My entire point was the simple fact that Ron Paul could win is not why they hate him. Your statement suggested it was. That is all.
Ah, but John! I didn't say "55% of 1.1% is significant." I said a 55% improvement (using your example) is a number I'd consider "significantly better" than anything the libertarian party had previously achieved. I also think a greater-than-55% improvement is possible with Ron Paul as the libertarian candidate for president.
Again I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not.
A (post-GOP primaries) Ron Paul Libertarian Party (for example) candidacy won't, in my opinion, hurt or halt the spread of libertarian ideas.
Again, "the truth of that assumption is not obvious to me." I suppose if you want to play semantics and dwell on what "spread of ideas" means, you could argue that. But if you want to honestly talk about what matters, it is the adoption, and more specifically, the implementation of those ideas. I honestly could not give a shit whether people identified as libertarian, or even knew or understood the ideas of liberty...so long as those principles were abided by. That is what is important.
And if you ask me, the most effective and efficient (aka fastest) way to have these ideas adopted and implemented is to have an "irate, tireless minority" active in rolling back the institutions of big government...as "knowledge without action is empty and useless." Simply "spreading ideas" is not going to do much to affect change. The change comes when people take that knowledge and do something about it. And the fastest way to leverage the knowledge of that minority is to have them active in the public sphere.
For one thing, you're more visible. You've got a bigger microphone. And you've got more respect. People will listen to a Congressman over some Joe. Like it or not, that's how it is. Even lowly House Representatives get on television. Therefore, being active in the arena makes it more likely that people will not only listen to what you have to say, but consider it. More people will hear what you say, and they are more likely to take it with greater and more serious weight...and therefore you have a greater ability to reach people with those ideas.
That's number one. You're in a better position to spread the ideas in the first place. Number two is, you are actually in a position to actively change something with those ideas in mind. If you're a local county clerk, or a mayor, or a legislator...your actions can directly influence the growth of government. Gary Johnson vetoed over 750 pieces of statewide legislation. All by himself. That is "making a difference."
Sure, you could just say "ah politics is no good, that institution shouldn't even be there in the first place" and go around trying to get people to agree with you, without ever actually trying to do something about it yourself. And yes, it's theoretically possible, that over time, if you get enough people to agree more and more that government interference is unnecessary, that people would become less and less interested in government doing things and eventually it would just "die out" because no one would vote and no one would run for any office, and everyone would just be largely libertarian and not be insistent that the government do this and do that.
But in my opinion that is lazy and incredibly naive. There is no possible way you would be able to convince enough people of even minarchism (let alone anarchism) to where the state would just shrink through basically indifference and attrition. There is just far too much power to be had, and far too much to be gained from political entrepreneurship. If you limit the movement of liberty to just "spreading ideas", it will go nowhere.
Obviously the ideas are the core piece. You need the ideas if you're going to have anything else. And those ideas have to be communicated. But just look at where this movement came from. A lowly House Representative, speaking about it and voting it and introducing it in legislation. Yes the education is important. But my point is the change is going to come from what these educated people do with that knowledge. And currently they seem to be doing the wise thing...that is, moving into positions of influence.
You can affect change much faster and more efficiently if the people with the knowledge are active and effective at utilizing the system to their advantage. Again, do you really believe Ron Paul could have had anywhere near the influence he's had, and would be where he is now, at the helm of a revolution, if he had just stayed an obstetrician? The ideas have spread the way they have in large part because of the position Paul held. Sure organizations like the LvMI have been there to offer intellectual support and a refuge of resources and camaraderie for people of the persuasion...but where did all these people get the idea to start searching for this information in the first place?
Where did these libertarians who are taking over local townships and county seats and the like get the motivation and the inspiration and the belief that they could make a difference (and the confidence that they were right and the established powers were wrong)?
I think you can unequivocally say that largely comes from Ron Paul. And I can pretty much guarantee Ron Paul would have been at most only a little more influential had he stayed in the Libertarian Party than if he stayed out of politics all together.
So my point is, you're concerned about just "spreading the ideas". I'm more worried about how to get those ideas adopted and implemented. And as the article articulates quite well, the 3rd party route is a losing strategy for doing this. Almost as ineffective and meaningless as simply trying to convince people that government is illegitimate so they shouldn't be voting, shouldn't run for office, shouldn't pay their taxes, and should defend themselves if agents of the state start coming to collect.
MMMark:Will it hurt the ability of libertarians to infiltrate the Republican Party? I don't see why. Will it hurt the ability of libertarians to run, as Republicans, for Congress? I don't see why.
Then you're not looking at the big picture. Ron Paul running 3rd party would "hand the election to Obama" in the eyes of virtually every Republican. Such a thing would delegitimize and undermine all of the progress that has been made in transforming the party.
"[a 3rd party run] would validate their claim and propaganda message that Ron Paul supporters are not real Republicans and add credibility to their goal to push us out of the party as we are in fact rapidly taking over precinct by precinct and county by county. Over the next four years they fear our liberty forces may well take over some states and then the establishment leaders are out of their powerful influence peddling positions."
Will it hurt Rand Paul's chances of a 2016 bid for nominee as Republican presidential candidate? I don't see why.
Then you're blind.
Here's a nice piece of evidence. This man has the 4th highest rated program on radio, with an average of more than 1.2 million listeners per day. You don't get more mainstream GOP Republican than this.
This guy is so angry at the prospect of Ron Paul running 3rd party that he is so desperate to have a way to get back at him that he (a Virginia resident) will "do everything in his power" to stop Paul's son from getting re-elected in Kentucky, 5 years in the future.
And you don't see how a Ron Paul 3rd party run could possibly hurt Rand Paul's chances of becoming a GOP presidential nominee?
Maybe I'm shortsighted and haven't thought it through
You said it, not me. (Well, I guess I kind of did say it, but you agree and concede I may very well be right.)
I don't see why the spread of libertarian ideas depends so strongly on taking control of the Republican Party.
Maybe not the "spread" of the ideas, but certainly their implementation...which, again, is the only thing that matters.
MMMark:Actually, I think the reverse is the case: taking control of the Republican Party will be one of the consequences of the spread of libertarian ideas.
Obviously...as what would be taking over the Republican Party if there weren't libertarian ideas spread in the first place? Those ideas have already largely spread. That's why the Party is in danger of being taken over.
And that's my entire point. It won't be taken over if the individuals involved become sidetracked and seduced by this 3rd party nonsense.
Another consequence might be the ascendancy of the U.S. Libertarian Party.
Have fun with that pipedream. I'll believe that when I see it. Again, I think the much more likely scenario is a Republican Party that acts more like Ron Paul.
hahaha! John, don't mince words; just please say what you mean!
I thought that's what I was doing. Was that supposed to be a joke? You're really confusing.
Clayton:Hey, folks, I got the obvious solution: the State has no legitimate claim to any money which it has not received either as a gift or through voluntary exchange just like anybody else! So, since it has no business taking money in the first place, the question of how high taxes should be is easy! 0%
Is this supposed to be a joke? The notion of "how high taxes should be" wasn't even part of the discussion.
proxyamenra:Peter and Jack will build the roads.
Oh and look who else joins the party:
(via Tom Woods): Gary North came back with a piece of his own [...]
I highly recommend reading this piece. And not just because he basically reiterates everything I've been saying all along.
Here's a taste:
Third party politics in a non-parliamentary system is the leprechaun's lure of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 was the last serious candidate to run on a third party. That led to the election of Woodrow Wilson. Taft lost. The Republican faithful never forgave Roosevelt. That century-old legacy is crucial for a successful political revolution inside the Republican Party over the next 8 years.
When I was on Ron Paul's Congressional staff in 1976, we had no idea of what he would accomplish. What's another 8 years?
We need 8 years to quietly infiltrate the Republican Party's county organizations, especially in rural counties where Democrats are dominant. Nobody wants to be a Republicans in in those counties. Ron Paul Republicans should take advantage of this. [...]
Ron Paul, as a good Republican, needs to put aside some of his campaign money to put together a post-election team of specialists in winning local elections. They need to set up an online training program for Republican activists who will become the next generation of leaders at the county level. [...]
Local Ron Paul fanatics need to do the groundwork for the next 8 years: mastering the basics of winning elections, dealing with entrenched bureaucrats, cutting budgets, and running local school boards. They must gain experience in preparation for their takeover of the national Republican party when the federal government is forced to default. When Washington becomes Athens -- and it will -- this new leadership will emerge at the national level. It will have this message: Ron Paul was right. [...]
Then there is Rand Paul. If his father openly bolts, Rand's chances will be zero in 2016, assuming that Romney loses in 2012. There will be pent-up rage against the name "Paul," in the same way that there was Republican rage against the name Roosevelt after 1912. But in 1920, Franklin Roosevelt got the nomination for Vice President . . . as a Democrat. [...]
A third party run is a kamikaze run.
Thurs. 12/04/12 23:05 EDT.post #147 John James:I thought that's what I was doing. Was that supposed to be a joke? You're really confusing.You were, it was, and I apologize.
John James:I thought that's what I was doing. Was that supposed to be a joke? You're really confusing.
John James:Did you actually just take the time to type that a significantly large number of Ron Paul supporters would prefer Ron Paul to be the GOP nominee than they would Mitt Romney?
That's what I typed.
John James:Again I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not.
I've been reading, and thinking about, what you said. I thought it was good, forceful, pretty convincing. I appreciate all the energy you put into your posts. I might have more to say about it tomorrow.
One thing, though; you said:
John James:Here's a nice piece of evidence. This man has the 4th highest rated program on radio, with an average of more than 1.2 million listeners per day. You don't get more mainstream GOP Republican than this.This guy is so angry at the prospect of Ron Paul running 3rd party that he is so desperate to have a way to get back at him that he (a Virginia resident) will "do everything in his power" to stop Paul's son from getting re-elected in Kentucky, 5 years in the future.And you don't see how a Ron Paul 3rd party run could possibly hurt Rand Paul's chances of becoming a GOP presidential nominee?
MMMark:No, not "Mitt Romney," but rather, "a Romney/Rand Paul ticket, with a cabinet appointment to Ron." Holland suggests this would "get (his) attention." I'm suggesting a significantly large percentage of Ron Paul supporters wouldn't vote for such a ticket. That's what I typed.
No, you typed (abridged): "a Romney/Rand Paul ticket, with a cabinet appointment to Ron, would be far less attractive to Ron Paul supporters than Ron as the GOP presidential nominee."
Well no kidding. People who are supporting Ron Paul for President would actually prefer him being the GOP nominee for President over him being appointed to a Cabinet and Mitt Romney being the nominee for President. I think we can place that safely in the "no shit" category.
I think neocon Levin is perfectly happy with neocon Obama
I think that's a gross mischaracterization of Obama.
But, I get your point: If Ron Paul leaves the Republican Party, millions of "die-hard" Republican voters who at least considered him (only because he was a Republican) will now shun him for "betraying" the Republican Party. Levin will attempt to exploit and foment this reaction. Then, the minds of all those potential supporters will be forever closed to what Ron Paul has to say.
Not just because of Levin, but yeah. Levin served as two different examples...one as the radio host that a lot of Republicans listen to and respect and will be influenced by...but two as an embodiment of a typical rank-and-file Republican. As in, he's verbalizing what a lot of regular voting Republicans are/would be thinking, even without Levin trying to influence them.
Well, this is going to happen anyway. Come August 27, 2012 (and probably well before), Paul will be pressured to "endorse Romney." If he refuses outright, or even if he's anything less than fully conciliatory, he'll be branded "a traitor to his party"
"The truth of that assumption is not obvious to me." Gary North doesn't seem to think so. And he's been around the political block a few times.
There is this possibility: Paul's delegate count come Tampa Bay might be formidable enough to apply pressure to Romney for his support. This, for me, would be close to ideal. Romney's "supporters" would be more likely to back Paul than Paul's supporters would be to back Romney. What could Paul promise Romney in return, I wonder?
I brought this up in the second to last paragraph here on the previous page.
I'm a dork - this reply went to the completely wrong thread.
*sigh
Sat. 12/04/14 00:35 EDT .post #148 John James:No, you typed (abridged): "a Romney/Rand Paul ticket, with a cabinet appointment to Ron, would be far less attractive to Ron Paul supporters than Ron as the GOP presidential nominee."Well no kidding. People who are supporting Ron Paul for President would actually prefer him being the GOP nominee for President over him being appointed to a Cabinet and Mitt Romney being the nominee for President. I think we can place that safely in the "no shit" category.Good. So therefore, they might be less likely to vote for such a ticket. Therefore, it's not at all clear that Romney/Rand Paul would beat Obama/Biden, which is what I originally said. If Romney/Paul wouldn't beat Obama, the alliance helps neither Romney nor Paul.What this alliance does (potentially) do is effectively remove any further threat Paul and his supporters pose to a Romney nomination. Then, a significantly large percentage of Paul's supporters will either not vote, or vote Libertarian.I'd favor Romney losing to Obama without the support of Ron Paul over Romney losing to Obama with the support of Ron Paul. It's the Republican Party that needs Ron Paul, not vice versa, and a Romney loss without Paul's support would, finally, make that obvious.So, unlike Ron Holland, neither Romney's pledges nor his "... naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment ..." would get my "attention." What such a scenario would get is my reiteration of Sidney Schanberg's judicious admonition. MMMark:I think neocon Levin is perfectly happy with neocon Obama John James:I think that's a gross mischaracterization of Obama.Please elaborate. MMMark:Perhaps "the plan" is another four years of Obama, which is why Romney is the "chosen one": He'd lose. It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He'd win. John James:That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because "he'd win". MMMark:Do you mean you don't think Paul would beat Obama, or do you mean that there is "no one" who would hate to see that happen? John James:I mean the idea of Paul winning is not the reason people hate him. I know millions of Americans who would elated regardless of who won, so long as he has an "R" by his name. MMMark:I don't argue with what you just said, but recall, I didn't say "people" or "millions of Americans" hate Ron Paul. I said "It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He'd win." So, certain people hate Ron Paul, i.e., the people to whom Ron Paul, and especially a Ron Paul win, is "dangerous." John James:First of all, if you don't think "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB " = "people" or "millions of Americans", I'm not sure what to say.First of all, since I don't think, didn't say, and didn't even imply that, you need not say anything. John James:Second, my argument is not who hates Ron Paul, ...Second, neither is mine. John James:... but why they hate him.And third, so is mine: They hate him because he'd win (keeping in mind that "they" means "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB").And fourth, where in this thread is your "argument ... why they hate (Ron Paul)"? John James:My entire point was the simple fact that Ron Paul could win is not why they hate him. Your statement suggested it was. That is all.Well if "that is all," then instead of- saying my statement "makes absolutely no sense," then- telling me you're "not sure what to say" about something I never said, then - telling me what your argument is not, then- telling me what your "argument is" (but not where it is), then- telling me what your "entire point was" versus what "(my) statement suggested,"you should have just said "I disagree," then explained why.You still can, and I'd be interested in reading what you have to say. You could follow that up by explaining how or why your argument renders my original statement worthy of the dismissal "That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because 'he'd win'." MMMark:Well, this is going to happen anyway. Come August 27, 2012 (and probably well before), Paul will be pressured to "endorse Romney." If he refuses outright, or even if he's anything less than fully conciliatory, he'll be branded "a traitor to his party" John James:"The truth of that assumption is not obvious to me." Gary North doesn't seem to think so.Thanks! Here is the relevant passage:Ron Paul sat out the 2008 debacle. He did not get blamed. If Romney loses without his endorsement, he will not be blamed.Well, we'll see. Ron Paul is a far greater threat this time around, although that hasn't been "officially" acknowledged. A brokered convention will force that acknowledgement. If Ron refuses to endorse, he'll be vilified. That's my prediction.
John James:No, you typed (abridged): "a Romney/Rand Paul ticket, with a cabinet appointment to Ron, would be far less attractive to Ron Paul supporters than Ron as the GOP presidential nominee."Well no kidding. People who are supporting Ron Paul for President would actually prefer him being the GOP nominee for President over him being appointed to a Cabinet and Mitt Romney being the nominee for President. I think we can place that safely in the "no shit" category.
MMMark:I think neocon Levin is perfectly happy with neocon Obama
John James:I think that's a gross mischaracterization of Obama.
MMMark:Perhaps "the plan" is another four years of Obama, which is why Romney is the "chosen one": He'd lose. It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He'd win.
MMMark:Do you mean you don't think Paul would beat Obama, or do you mean that there is "no one" who would hate to see that happen?
MMMark:I don't argue with what you just said, but recall, I didn't say "people" or "millions of Americans" hate Ron Paul. I said "It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He'd win." So, certain people hate Ron Paul, i.e., the people to whom Ron Paul, and especially a Ron Paul win, is "dangerous."
John James:First of all, if you don't think "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB " = "people" or "millions of Americans", I'm not sure what to say.
John James:Second, my argument is not who hates Ron Paul, ...
John James:... but why they hate him.
John James:My entire point was the simple fact that Ron Paul could win is not why they hate him. Your statement suggested it was. That is all.
MMMark:Well, this is going to happen anyway. Come August 27, 2012 (and probably well before), Paul will be pressured to "endorse Romney." If he refuses outright, or even if he's anything less than fully conciliatory, he'll be branded "a traitor to his party"
John James:"The truth of that assumption is not obvious to me." Gary North doesn't seem to think so.
Ron Paul sat out the 2008 debacle. He did not get blamed. If Romney loses without his endorsement, he will not be blamed.
MMMark:therefore, they might be less likely to vote for such a ticket. [...] If Romney/Paul wouldn't beat Obama, the alliance helps neither Romney nor Paul.
I'm not arguing that Rand should join Romney, but I do love how "might be less likely" turns into "wouldn't beat" in less than two sentences.
Then, a significantly large percentage of Paul's supporters will either not vote, or vote Libertarian.
"The truth of that assumption is not obvious to me."
I'd favor Romney losing to Obama without the support of Ron Paul over Romney losing to Obama with the support of Ron Paul. It's the Republican Party that needs Ron Paul, not vice versa, and a Romney loss without Paul's support would, finally, make that obvious.
I'm the one who said that. This is what I mean about you pretending to offer opposition but ending up offering nothing more than an echo of what I and the article already said. You're the one who said:
"If he refuses outright [to endorse Romney], or even if he's anything less than fully conciliatory, he'll be branded "a traitor to his party" - ESPECIALLY if Romney is nominated and subsequently loses to Obama (which I think he will). And I don't expect Paul to be 'fully conciliatory.'"
In fact you said that in the post right before this latest one. You said whether Paul runs 3rd party or not it doesn't matter...if he doesn't endorse Romney, the same thing will happen. Now in your very next post you're telling me that it would be better for Paul to not support Romney.
So, unlike Ron Holland, neither Romney's pledges nor his "... naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment ..." would get my "attention." What such a scenario would get is my reiteration of Sidney Schanberg's judicious admonition.
Fine. I fail to see what any of this has to do with the main topic of the article, and what we are discussing here. (The 3rd party question...in case you haven't noticed.)
MMMark:I think neocon Levin is perfectly happy with neocon Obama John James:I think that's a gross mischaracterization of Obama.Please elaborate.
"Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets."[1]
Barack Obama does not generally display ideaology of "traditional conservatism", nor does he really offer even "qualified" endorsements of free markets. There are much better (i.e. more accurate) labels to saddle him with.
MMMark:I don't argue with what you just said, but recall, I didn't say "people" or "millions of Americans" hate Ron Paul. I said "It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul[...] John James:if you don't think "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB " = "people" or "millions of Americans", I'm not sure what to say.First of all, since I don't think, didn't say, and didn't even imply that
I don't argue with what you just said, but recall, I didn't say "people" or "millions of Americans" hate Ron Paul. I said "It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul[...]
John James:if you don't think "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB " = "people" or "millions of Americans", I'm not sure what to say.
John James:Second, my argument is not who hates Ron Paul, ...Second, neither is mine.
Uh...then why are you bothering to focus on who you said hates Ron Paul? If who hates him isn't the issue, then why the hell did you bother trying to correct me and say "I didn't say "people" or "millions of Americans" hate Ron Paul [...] I said the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul"? (as if there was a difference between those things. i.e. that "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB" are not "people" or "millions of Americans". Because fyi, they are.)
John James:And fourth, where in this thread is your "argument ... why they hate (Ron Paul)"?
Sigh. Look right below. You just quoted it right after you asked this question.
John James:My entire point was the simple fact that Ron Paul could win is not why they hate him. Your statement suggested it was. That is all.Well if "that is all," then instead of - saying my statement "makes absolutely no sense," then - telling me you're "not sure what to say" about something I never said, then - telling me what your argument is not, then - telling me what your "argument is" (but not where it is), then - telling me what your "entire point was" versus what "(my) statement suggested," you should have just said "I disagree," then explained why.
double sigh. I honestly don't know how to make you understand this. I'm going to type this one more time and then I'm done with it, because either you cannot get it, or don't get it, or are pretending not to get it.
You: "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul because he would win."
Me: "That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because "he'd win"." (i.e., the reason people hate him is not that "he would win.")
You: "I didn't say "people" or "millions of Americans" hate Ron Paul. I said the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul"
Me: What's the difference? Are "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB" not "people"? Or "millions of Americans"? If you don't think they are, I don't know what to say.
You: I never said I didn't think "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB" were not "people" or "millions of Americans".
Implicitly, you did. You are the one who brought up and distinguished the fact that you didn't say "people" or "millions of Americans"...that you said "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB"...as if they were something other than "people" or "millions of Americans". If you didn't think they were something different, then why the hell would you bother trying to make a distinction between the two? I don't even know why you introduced that. It makes no sense.
The whole point I was making was:
You: They hate Ron Paul because he'd win.
Me: That's not why they hate him.
And instead of trying to argue your assertion (that, yes, the simple notion of winning something is the reason people hate the guy...as in, his ideology and what he would do in that position of power and influence has virtually nothing to do with it), you change the subject and try to argue who "they" is by telling me "I didn't say 'people', I said 'the GOP and the media'."
If you cannot follow this now, there's probably no way I can help you. Apologies.
MMMark:If Ron refuses to endorse, he'll be vilified. That's my prediction.
I don't doubt there will be people who will be looking for any way to place blame for a Romney loss somewhere, and that one of the easiest targets would be Ron Paul. This would be not unlike the way Democrats blamed everything on Bush. But that won't hold. It certainly won't be something to hurt Paul supporters and their success and momentum in the Republican Party, and even less in hurting a Rand Paul run years from now.
A 3rd party run would. People would remember that. But after 4 years, there will not be any significant number of Republicans who would try to blame a simple lack of endorsement on a Romney loss. By that time it would seem petty and really reaching...like the deserate pleadings of a bitter loser. But if Paul actually ran against Romney in the general election, and there were actual numbers to point to of the actual votes he "took away from Romney", a lot more people would feel a lot more justified (and would therefore have a much easier time) blaming Paul...because it is almost guaranteed if you were to add Paul votes to Romney votes, it would be more than Obama. (And even though it would certainly not be true that 100% of Paul votes would have otherwise gone to Romney, Republicans wouldn't care.)
Which again, goes back to my whole point from the very beginning of all of this: Ron Paul running in a 3rd party for the 2012 Presidential election is a terrible idea.
Now if you actually want to debate that, I would suggest you get on with it because you've taken this whole page essentially pretending to disagree with the premise, and yet haven't really offered a single argument against it.