1. His son who has frankly terrible political views, and makes libertarianism look like a parody or completely irrelevant. The guy has to be smart to be a doctor, but he is sure pandering to the religious fundamentalists. I think this is a dangerous relativism when we say that it is okay to have state-level opinions about drugs, homosexuality, and evolution. Instead of just coming out and saying that drugs and homosexuality hurt no one... and that evolution is true. What we get instead, from Ron and Rand sadly, is a half-hearted "I hate those things, but...".
2. Gary Johnson who has none of the baggage and what looks like a more advanced approach to politics. He also keeps many of the great views about foreign policy/aid and war on drugs. This guy is 20 years younger, and has more acceptable views, ,to most, about immigration and gay marriage. He also believes in evolution. He could possibly be a phenomenon now that he has moved out of the Republican party.
There are several issues. One is the issue of identifying social and poltiical leaders who are not seeking to plunder those they lead and have views that are acceptable to those they lead. In this respect, Ron and Rand are perfect. The second issue is one of enlightenment regarding the proper role of law in regulating social norms - which should be extremely small.
Finally, there is the issue of opening up competition in the "production of government", in particular ideological coexistence and variety. Liberalization of governance will be characterized with greater freedom in the large and lesser freedom in the small. That is, some communities will choose to enact policies that are more restrictive than what we currently have at the Federal level (for example, banning abortion or guns). But because - admittedly - nobody knows the right answers to the question "what is the perfect government?", we need to embrace and welcome this variation rather than refuse to evolve our social structures because there will be pockets of unenlightened communities that have regressive policies. In the long-run, greater political autonomy will tend to marginalize regressive policies more and faster than any other alternative.
Clayton -
1. Rand Paul isn't perfect but he's a hell of a lot better then anyone else.
I think this is a dangerous relativism when we say that it is okay to have state-level opinions about drugs, homosexuality, and evolution.
And how would addressing those issues on a federal level be any better?
Johnson is good but he doesn't have the fanfare the Pauls have. Better play it safe and back Rand instead.
John Ess:1. His son who has frankly terrible political views, and makes libertarianism look like a parody or completely irrelevant.
What does this have to do with Ron Paul?
Gary Johnson who has none of the baggage and what looks like a more advanced approach to politics.
Right. Because he's doing so well in the polls, and making such a splash at campaign rallies. Really changing the face of the American electorate.
He also keeps many of the great views about foreign policy
I'm sorry...what?
This guy is 20 years younger, and has more acceptable views, ,to most, about immigration and gay marriage.
From what I understand Gary Johnson wants to legalize gay marriage. Ron Paul wants the government out of marriage entirely. Please explain how Gary Johnson's idea is an easier sell.
Aside from all that, I honestly fail to see why any of this is relevant. Ron Paul will either be President of the United States, or out of politics and doing something else to promote liberty. Please explain what you mean by "Ron Paul is 'done'". Done with what? He said at least 6 months ago he wasn't running for re-election in his district. Obviously he's not going to run for any other office after this one. Exactly what news are you sharing here?
Gary Johnson who has none of the baggage and what looks like a more advanced approach to politics. He also keeps many of the great views about foreign policy/aid and war on drugs.
You must be kidding. Johnson has said over and over that he won't rule out preemptive strikes if he thinks they are a threat...
Rand Paul at least kept Georgia out of NATO.
He could possibly be a phenomenon now that he has moved out of the Republican party.
Anyone with a child's understanding of libertarianism can see through Johnson. Why do you think Ron Paul never mentioned him? Paul didn't even pay back a compliment in public when he was praised not one minute beforehand... Frankly, none of the libertarians candidates stand out. The one with the glasses who is bald (he may be a military vet as well) is the most consistent and fervently anti-war, but see? I cannot even remember his name...
We're f*****. When humanity coalesces into world government and that collapses we shall have justice.
We're f*****
Cheer up, Aristophanes - I too am pretty pessimistic about the short-run fate of the US (along with Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, etc.) but I think there is a large and growing segment of the rest of the world that is just flat fed-up with US bullying. I think a lot of these people are plying their own strategies, some even mildly cooperating with each other, to bring down the US regime through "less lethal" methods, such as economic collapse. The explosion in US "national security" spending and the ballooning of US unfunded obligations to astronomical proportions is so set against our own "national security interests" that I think it is a plausible hypothesis that our government has been infiltrated by foreign entities to collapse our military power through precisely this means.
But - paradoxically - that's a good thing for the world, particularly in terms of the feasibility of world government. Capitalism is thriving more than it ever has - it's just dead in the US. Look into moving to another country such as Argentina or Singapore. Doug Casey is in the former, Jim Rogers in the latter. They're making good money and they're avoiding the extortionate tax rates in the US. Go forth and prosper, man!
Gary Johnson has no chance in the Republican party, he's way too socially liberal. Rand Paul imo it's the perfect candidate for the Republican party, being a moderate on his Libertarian stances and a well known figurehead of Tea Party movement.
Gary Johnson is pretty terrible and he's almost a Bush Republican. Instead of supporting restitution, he boasts about "privatizing" prisons when he was governor. He even said the Fed should exist to "keep prices stable", even though that's not possible and "price stability" is subjective. Chuck Baldwin was a lot better than he is (I know Chuck Baldwin isn't running now).
That said, the Libertarian Party hasn't been worthy of its name since Y2K.
Yeah, I forgot that Johnson doesn't know anything about Austrian economics either. haha
I liked Johnson. Then he left the republican party. Now, I like the libertarian party too, but the great value of Johnson was that he could be in the republican party without being labeled an extremist or RINO. Now's he's left and made fun of the republican establishment too much to rejoin anytime soon without being called out. He doesn't have too much of a future with the libertarian party either unless he intends to rerun for Governor, but he's hit the term limits there. I really wish he had simply tried to run for the republican nomination in '16.
He certainly isn't a reason why Paul is 'done'.
These are not objective reasons why he is bad. I'm not even trying to present that he is so subjectively. I don't think that.
But I think these are reasons why his phenomenon is likely to have run aground.
The son is a fundamentalist Christian who says a lot of embarrassing things which becomes fuel in the media. His views on gay marriage say it all: the bigotry of the majority is right, not principles and rational thinking. And it is hard for a father to repudiate his son, especially since his son likely got involved in politics because of the old man. Like the newsletters, that fundamentalism is going to be tied back to him. And also to libertarianism in general. The state's rights thing is ok, but in this case sounds like waffling. He doesn't want to have to say that evolution is true and that marijuana and homosexuality are harmless. Since these will offend evangelical Christians.
Gary Johnson, far from being a great candidate, is good enough to steal the thunder from Paul. The public is looking for someone who will be a worthwhile libertarian with the largest tent for mass politics. And that same group is not looking for a Republican, which is now associated with something entirely separate from Ron or Gary. He is younger, taller, and more possibly able to be cool. He doesn't have hidden newsletters, creationist belief, will openly say that there is nothing harmful about homosexuality and marijuana, is more liberal regarding immigration.
This all adds up to Ron being done with whatever he has been doing.
I second Clayton's answer. Rather than insisting that all or the whole countries be libertarian, it makes far more sense to simply let countries decide and let population vote with their food.
John Ess:But I think these are reasons why his phenomenon is likely to have run aground.
aka, the "Ron Paul revolution is done". So thaaaaat's what you meant by this thread. Well, that makes more sense than the original title...but your alleged support for that claim still doesn't even seem to relate.
So you're saying his essetially being a better politician to enhance his appeal to more people, will actually work against him. Okay. Maybe. I mean if Ron Paul supporters are really die hard, to the bone, no questions asked, all or nothing types that would even reject the man's son on grounds that he simply won't get in people's faces about homosexuality...okay. I suppose you could make that argument.
But wait...
Gary Johnson, far from being a great candidate
Except on those great foreign policy views, huh?
is good enough to steal the thunder from Paul.
You mean Ron? I mean, the title of this thread is "Ron Paul is done". So I want to get this straight. You're alleging that a Libertarian ticket Gary Johnson is going to "steal thunder" from Ron Paul in the 2012 presidential election? I'm sorry, but if you believe that you're a damned moron.
If you mean after Ron Paul is out of politics, people will turn to Gary Johnson over Rand Paul, then, you can very well make that argument. But I still fail to see what this has to do with Ron Paul.
The public is looking for someone who will be a worthwhile libertarian with the largest tent for mass politics.
"The public"? Last time I checked "the public" wasn't looking for a libertarian at all. So again, I'm not really sure where you're getting this, or what this is even supposed to mean.
And that same group is not looking for a Republican, which is now associated with something entirely separate from Ron or Gary. He is younger, taller, and more possibly able to be cool. He doesn't have hidden newsletters, creationist belief, will openly say that there is nothing harmful about homosexuality and marijuana, is more liberal regarding immigration.
Who are you talking about here? Is this supposed to be a description of Gary Johnson? Or is this some nameless faceless archytype that "the public" is looking for? Because if you follow the syntax in that paragraph, grammatically you're not talking about Ron Paul or Gary Johnson...which would leave the only other options to be Rand Paul, or some archytype.
So which is it?
Spreading the message of liberty? Ron Paul's done with his life's work and passion, because his son has a better chance of appealing to evangelical Christians? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Gary Johnson has some good ideas but he is way to different then Dr. Paul for me to bother with supporting him. He also doesn't have the name recognition Dr. Paul has so you wouldnt see any of the mass support. Johnson won't bring people over to libertarianism the way Dr. Paul does.
All the voter fraud in this election confirms my suspicion that presidential voting will never work. We need to vote with our feet instead if we want to bother with political change. Get involved with making that state more libertarian if you want to work within the stystem.
Ron Paul and the revolution may be done; not saying anything about it's effect on the future. But as a phenomenon it is done for now, or probably forever. People are going to get distracted by something else. Probably Gary Johnson, for those interested in libertarianism.
The two main points: that son is a liability to his cause. And Gary johnson will syphon off some supporters, because he seems more moderate than Ron Paul. But there is still demand for many of the views of Ron Paul. At this point, this a demand for an abstract decrease in government and taxes, less or eventually no involvement overseas, and expansion of civil liberties. I'm not sure about the fed; most people probably think that is an extremist view to eliminate the fed.
I'm not knocking the son's being a politician. Hell, Romney and Gingrich are good politicians. But he is a politician and appeals to evangelicals, because he left rational principles behind. And that's going to reflect on the old man, and those who are going connect Rand Paul to libertarianism. And he is getting in people's faces about homosexuality. He said "what bible are you reading?" in response to Obama's saying that Bible says to treat people as you want to be treated. Implying that the Bible obviously hates homosexuals, and trying to get the cheers of the morons in that crowd.
Again, he is not a libertarian that is so good that he appeals to evangelicals, he is an evangelical who is not a libertarian. But has the same last name as one. He is not pushing libertarianism at all, but awaking and encouraging some of the dumbest people in the country. Who support neither liberty or peace or anything else good.
The description is of Gary Johnson. I don't understand why you pointlessly nitpick my statements; check the name that leads the paragraph. Gary Johnson never wrote newsletters against blacks, supports evolution science, supports legalization of marijuana and gay marriage, and visas to get immigrants to work legally in the country. He is also not as old and looks more like a president. Not looking like a president hurts people like Ron and Newt Gingrich, for different reasons. Ron is too short, and Newt is too fat and pasty. This is why Romney is winning; it's about 99 percent of why Obama is in the white house. This stuff matters in the election, whether it is rational or not.
@OP:
If forum has screwed image, see here.
Okay, you're right, bro. Ron Paul will definitely get elected in november and then anarcho-freakin'-capitalism here we come!
What was I thinking?
Why We're Entering the Age of Ron Paul
also Brian Doherty on Why Young People Love Ron Paul (i.e., "young people" aka "the future")