As a 55 year old ex-Republican since about 2001 I am completely speechless at this groundswelling support for Ron Paul. For many years I've watched and admired this man just wishing I lived in his district only to vote for him.
And it all is coming up from We The People. My cynicism is subsiding a bit more everyday.
Got one of those form letters from Ron Paul today, and he mentions the same thing, the spontaneous order that his campaign has taken. Don't know if it was just obvious or he read my comment. But if obvious, don't know why I've never heard mention of it before. Lets all hope it continues and over runs the collectivist campaign structures of the other candidates.
Oh, btw, I've also followed Ron Pauls career since he ran for President in 1988. I'd love to vote for him as well, but can't. I'm Canadian. Have been active in libertarian politics since 1982, and ran for MP in my riding in 1993.
It is pretty amazing that the grassroots works at all, much less as well as it is currently.
Libertarian theory is built around the ideas of individualism and spontaneous order, so I sure hope it works in real life. This is an excellent example of it doing just that.
Is there going to be a tipping point(Malcom Gladwell's Tipping Point) when enough people will be supporting Ron Paul that in a landslide whole of the America will start supporting him?
“The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least”-Gandhi
Maybe when those ideas reach a cricial mass. I think we're reaching that here. All the more reason why he should NOT stop his campaign if he doesn't win the Primary. He would be caving into a collectivist idea that he must run as a Republican or Democrat rather than as an individual. Yes, there are roadblocks, he has to point them out and demand their removal. So long as he moves forward, so will the idea. It will spread. If he stops, it could die. It will be hard to get things going again. This is a great opportunity, one I haven't seen in thirty years.
prashantpawar:Is there going to be a tipping point(Malcom Gladwell's Tipping Point) when enough people will be supporting Ron Paul that in a landslide whole of the America will start supporting him?
That is very unlikely. Paul's positions will be easier to slander than Barry Goldwater's were when LBJ ran an advertisement of a little girl getting nuked.
While I am impressed by Ron Paul's campaign and the grassroots efforts of its supporters, I have to disagree with the idea that it represents an instance of spontaneous order. The supporters of the Ron Paul campaign were all acting in order to achieve exactly the end that they are working towards achieving. Spontaneous order arises when the participants do not act with the outcome in mind. So...sorry!
Donny with an A:While I am impressed by Ron Paul's campaign and the grassroots efforts of its supporters, I have to disagree with the idea that it represents an instance of spontaneous order. The supporters of the Ron Paul campaign were all acting in order to achieve exactly the end that they are working towards achieving. Spontaneous order arises when the participants do not act with the outcome in mind. So...sorry!
Right, but the campaign itself didn't work towards where their supporters have brought them. The campaign didn't do much of anything but encourage it. The entire campaign is an example of spontaneous order, while the individual plans and efforts of its supporters are not (just like a single business is not ordered spontaneously, but the interaction of businesses from the perspective of a market observer are).
Okay, I think I see what you're saying. I'd still rather say that the network of supporters was an unintended consequence, rather than spontaneous order.
I'm sticking by spontaneous order. There was no central direction and a wide variety of political perspectives all coming together spontaneously around each person's desire for more liberty and less gov't control in areas they most cared about. They did so from their own objectives, not a collective one, you have libertarians sure, but also liberals, conservatives, socialists and anarchists. Individuals took it on themselves to promote the campaign and move it forward. In fact, they did a far better job than did the actual campaign designers (btw, the formal campaign ads I find awful and for me, work against getting Paul elected). If I were in charge of the Ron Paul campaign, I'd put all my efforts into supporting the individuals behind the real movement and use some of their YouTube ads (with minor adjustments). Oh, and of course, get rid of glaring examples of promoting something that is hostile to freedom (immigration laws).
In the sense that Hayek meant, where individuals use their specific 'tacit' knowledge that the campaign as a whole does not have, I suppose it's entirely correct to call it a spontaneous order.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Kent C:If I were in charge of the Ron Paul campaign, I'd put all my efforts into supporting the individuals behind the real movement and use some of their YouTube ads (with minor adjustments). Oh, and of course, get rid of glaring examples of promoting something that is hostile to freedom (immigration laws).
Humm...moderator of Ron Paul Forums eh? Sent in to join up about a week ago, haven't gotten my password sent yet.
Kent C:Humm...moderator of Ron Paul Forums eh? Sent in to join up about a week ago, haven't gotten my password sent yet.
Clearly, I'm not the only one to see this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/malone3.html
Though apparantly the first to point it out.
Excuse my ignorance, but i am a quite astonished to see all this Ron-Paul-support thing on mises.org. If i understood correctly (which is not sure), this candidate is contra-gay marriage, contra-abortion, contra-death penalty, contra-drugs legalization... Surely, he is "economically" libertarian; but does it mean anything to be "economically" libertarian only?
Also, I think he favors a minimization of the federal State... but because he sort of favors the delegation of lots of its powers to the local states...
As far as i do not live in the usa, this question is just a matter of curiosity, for me. If anyone can explain and make me less silly... thanks.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Jeremie Rostan:Excuse my ignorance, but i am a quite astonished to see all this Ron-Paul-support thing on mises.org. If i understood correctly (which is not sure), this candidate is contra-gay marriage, contra-abortion, contra-death penalty, contra-drugs legalization... Surely, he is "economically" libertarian; but does it mean anything to be "economically" libertarian only? Also, I think he favors a minimization of the federal State... but because he sort of favors the delegation of lots of its powers to the local states... As far as i do not live in the usa, this question is just a matter of curiosity, for me. If anyone can explain and make me less silly... thanks.
Lew Rockwell and co. have been drinking the koolaid, and passing it out too. Remember Jonestown?
I found an interesting discussion on R.T. Long's blog (http://praxeology.net/blog/)
where he analyses W. Block's response to the critics of his supporting R. Paul.
It all seems to me like a great political mess.Well, that's politics, I guess.
Ron Paul is pro-drug legalization, opposed to the death penalty (he supported it at one time), is for the state not deciding on issues of marriage, and for the states deciding on abortion.
Jeremie Rostan: I found an interesting discussion on R.T. Long's blog (http://praxeology.net/blog/)where he analyses W. Block's response to the critics of his supporting R. Paul. It all seems to me like a great political mess.Well, that's politics, I guess.
Walter must be using a form letter, I got pretty much the same response on Ron Paul's immigration policy, which I have a VERY hard time seeing as libertarian.
Jeremie Rostan:Excuse my ignorance, but i am a quite astonished to see all this Ron-Paul-support thing on mises.org. If i understood correctly (which is not sure), this candidate is contra-gay marriage, contra-abortion, contra-death penalty, contra-drugs legalization... Surely, he is "economically" libertarian; but does it mean anything to be "economically" libertarian only?
He is personally against abortion, but again opposes using the federal government to directly limit it.
Ron Paul is against the death penalty at the federal level, but does not aim to impose upon states that they may not use it. (Why he hasn't always opposed it at the federal level, I know not. The constitution does not say the federal government has the authority to execute anyone.)
Dr. Paul is in favour of decriminalising drugs, all drugs, at all levels of government, but refuses to force states to decriminalise drugs with the federal government.
Paul's real problems are as follows: he does not oppose the unconstitutional government control over immigration, he does not believe states should decriminalise abortion, and he believes the government should continue to exist. Outside of that, he's great. :)