Well because there's been interest shown in it lately, let's sit down and have a good old chat about our buddy Ron Paul. Now I'm afraid that someone's going to tell me to look back at the RNC thread for answers about this but I don't want to sift through all of that for the answers here. Anyway...
So now that the Ron Paul Revolution is more or less over, how does everyone feel that it went? Was the entire thing a success insofar as we could hope, or was it a brutal catastrophe? What do you feel the long term effects of his candidacy will be, and to a much lesser extent what finally took the wind out of the movement's sails?
I still think that the Ron Paul movement is certainly among the most important developments in 2012, since it revealed that there was a pretty significant desire for the sorts of things that Ron Paul was supporting. I feel that this signifies both a large change in public opinion and voting patterns. Although some of this might disappear if general discontent with the establishment falls, I think that it does certainly bode well for a more libertarian future. Just looking around this site you saw a lot of people who were influenced from his candidacy back in 08, and I think that this time it will have an even more significant impact in how many people come over to libertarianism. While this isn't amazing success, it's certainly more than I think could have been expected just a year ago, and I don't think that it's unrealistic that in a few years we could see 5 to 10 percent of the electorate being actively libertarian to various degrees.
As for what killed the movement, I can't say that I'd ever really considered the actual effect of Rand Paul. I lost interest in Paul's progress after he lost the first few primaries and I was convinced that he wasn't going to win, so I was much more interested in the movements repercussions than the movement itself and for this reason I didn't actually pay attention to anything which was happening within the movement. I had assumed that as the movement died down it was specifically because it became increasingly obvious that Paul had no chance of become President Paul, not because Rand's endorsement had actually changed anything.
So, input would be appreciated here, as would any abstention from arguing.
Well I think a lot happened to Ron at the same time that deflated the movement. Rand, coming out and saying he was broke so he's going to stop campaigning, and getting beat up at getting delegates. I think all these things played a major role with rand being the least of it.
As far as the libertarian movement I think we are looking at more than 10%. Literally I think in two elections from now we can have a libertarian majority in this country. The only thing I see stopping the movement is the Dems and rep move to a more libertarian platform for a couple elections. We also need a few legit libertarians to get into office! The movement doesn't require a leader, but it certainly helps.
bottom line though I think it's too easy for the two parties to alter their platforms enough to convince the public to vote for them. Then a few years later back to biz as usual
I wouldnt be here if it wasnt for ron paul.
While he probably wont win (theres still minimal hope), he did inspire many to become more politically/economically aware of the things around them.
People are wanting to vote for gary johnson, but screw him. hes not an austrian. and not as big as ron paul either. I dont really like gary johnson.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
I think both the '08 and '12 Paul campaigns were, in the grand scheme of things, great successes. It popularized libertarian ideas and authors. It made questioning the two-party system and the Federal Reserve a mainstream possibility. The movement built a strong infrastructure on the internet for the libertarian message. It's basically a "best-case realistic scenerio". To be honest, I was always concerned about what would happen if Paul would actually win. He would have had the bully pulpit of the White House, but very little political power in the government as a whole. It would have been very easy for him to be set up as a scapegoat for any kind of economic troubles or other issues. He also had the baggage from the "Paleo-libertarian" movement and newsletter fiasco.
As it stands now he's sort of riding off into the sunset as an effective champion of liberty that has shifted the political discourse in the US and abroad. If he would have been elected I think we would actually have seen a very different, muddled legacy. Rand is not the future, although I imagine he might stick around in the Senate for a while. There is a new generation of libertarians thanks to Ron, and I think we'll see new candidates and spokesmen coming up through the ranks.
Though a vote for Gary will inspire more ppl to vote libertarian in the future, and inspire libertarians to run for office. It's also a vote against the status quo
Peter schiff should run for presidential election.
Ron paul endorses peter schiff.
Supporters see peter schiff as having true libertarian ideas, and is a member of austrian school.
Ron paul political capital and supporters move to peter schiff.
peter schiff's money and connections help him improve in campaign.
peter schiff not being old like ron paul will appear better to mainstream idiots.
perhaps peter schiff may choose ron paul as vice president, gary johnson as vice president, or ran paul as vice president.
I've realized any prior amount of respect I had for most journalists and the national broadcast media has been totally obliterated.
I've seen how thorough and reactionary mainstream media can become in the ways they distorted literally everything the man believed in. In such a systematic, coordinated fashion, no less.
Politically the RP movement was spectacular. He actually called out the Fed and other central banks for what they really are: A bunch of government sponsored thieves. He was also by far the most articulate proponent of peace that I have ever seen in my lifetime spanning the end of the Vietnam War to today.
As for its political accomplishments, getting Rand into the Senate has been HUGE. Rand has more accomplishments in his first Senate term than RP for his career. Being a Senator and being able to affect foreign policy, Rand is in a better position to accomplish RP's vision of a USA that has friendly trade relationships with rest of the world instead of this endless war foolishness. Rand PERSONALLY stopped the Senate from approving a treaty admitting the Republic of Georgia into NATO and thus stopped a direct confrontation with Russia. And in this one the USA would lose when Russia turns the Natural Gas Pipelines down a notch and stops lending money to large French and German banks leveraged on debt from Spain, Italy and Greece.
Am i the only one noticing the massive forum spam?
He did what he could and I respect him for that.
The incredibly corrupt media, the newsletters, and being a frankly bad speaker made it so he didn't really have a chance at being President sadly.
I'm not so sure about that. His senate run sputtered a bit, and I think on the national stage we could do better. Peter can be smarmy and cynical sometimes, and often talks quickly and get agitated. All fine for a commentator and financial analyst, but not great material for Presidential debates.
I think the next person we need is someone who will combine Paul's message of fiscal freedom and peace with a strong message of civil libertires. Primarily:
In general, a principled message for the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" crowd. Paul touched on this, and it seems that the hard core of his supporters were passionate about these issues, although at times Paul would only pay lip service to some of them (like marriage equality). Furthermore, (and I know some people will disagree with me here) we don't want a Rothbardian "red button pusher" who will advocate tearing the state down and calling it a day. There are huge and unjust distortions in our society, and I'd prefer someone who would "take away the shackles before the crutches". Someone promoting economic freedome while also supporting a simpified welfare state (ie. a Negative Income tax or Universal Basic Income) would result in a much more libertarian society and work to undo some of the grevious harm the State has done to the middle and lower classes.
First, it's really gay that you would look at one thread, then make another about the same subject and say "I don't wanna look through the orignial thread about this topic." ............. You are essentially saying that mine, JJ, and Minarchist's conversation didn't have enough to offer, even though all three of us wrote extensively about our opinions.
I had assumed that as the movement died down it was specifically because it became increasingly obvious that Paul had no chance of become President Paul, not because Rand's endorsement had actually changed anything.
Rand's endorsement destroyed the integrity that Ron had built. Rand knew that he was setup to inheret the following, but thought he could "broaden" the interest by "selling out." Simple as that.
1. This thread also asks about different, but related topics
2. That thread wasn't really about this, it was about the "Republican National Convention" and whether Paul would be able to speak.
3. To understand many of the posts that you put up one would have to read every single one of the posts to understand what was being replied to in the previous response.
4. From what I saw none of you succinctly put out your point in an explanation format and were instead arguing more point by point and a lot of what was being talked about was stuff which differed from the topic which we are talking about now.
5. I think you overestimate how easy it would be for observers to get something valuable with the discussion.
6. Thank you for your input on the topic. Can you explain to me how exactly that killed the movement? Why didn't everyone pretty much just spit at Rand and move on? That's what I saw happen around here.
Can you explain to me how exactly that killed the movement?
Because it divided people into the 'purist' and 'pragmatist' camps. The pragmatists have no limits set on 'how statist they will state'. The purists now have NO icon in the system or even in the public eye that measures anywhere close to the respect that Ronald demanded. So, far, Schiff and Kokesh are the only two and, honestly, Schiff would shift as quickly as Rand, I suspect. Kokesh is too intense for the mainstream (not in behavior or manners, but image and message).
We have been divided and conquered.
Why didn't everyone pretty much just spit at Rand and move on? That's what I saw happen around here.
It seems to me that there are more pragmatists than there are purists, which would be expected. Also, "around here" is roughly 30 people (regularly), from what I can tell.
To understand many of the posts that you put up one would have to read every single one of the posts to understand what was being replied to in the previous response.
I don't know how that is different than any other thread...
I disagree that it's over, or even winding down. What's happening now is much like what happened towards the end of the 2008 campaign. The frenzy of interest in the campaign reached a climax and receded. It didn't mean the movement had ended. The 2008 campaign built the base for the much more successful campaign of 2012, and this campaign will increase that base for future efforts. Yes, those efforts will not include another political campaign for Ron Paul himself, and the movement will have to do some soul-searching in the next few months to decide which direction to take, but I have no doubt that it will continue to grow.
Just looking around this site you saw a lot of people who were influenced from his candidacy back in 08, and I think that this time it will have an even more significant impact in how many people come over to libertarianism.
Bingo, and this is what Ron has been trying to do all along. I think he is realistic enough to have known that his chances of winning were slim to none. The second battle of this revolution is almost over, the war is just beginning.
What disillusionment there is within the movement mostly comes from disappointed expectations about Ron's victory. I think Rand, along with Jesse Benton, Doug Wead, et al are just scapegoats. This is a good example of a tendency that seems to be pretty universal in human beings. If there's a group of people following a leader of some kind, and the enterprise they're all engaged in doesn't meet their expectations, they tend not to blame the leader himself, but rather the coterie of individuals around the leader who they imagine are responsible for the failure. Look at the French Revolution or Tsarist Russia, it was never the King or the Tsar's fault, it was always those evil ministers, the Austrian bitch, etc, etc. This is not to say that the leader is actually to blame, it may be that no one is to blame. I think that's the case with the Ron Paul revolution. We did our best, played the game pretty well, but we lost. At least, we didn't win the whole pot. But as I said above, huge strides have been made and I think we can look forward to a lot more success in the future.
I dont think his campaign was slowed down by Rand. If anything, Rand's endorsement of romney only stirred the crowd more.
The reason why his campaign slowed down so dramatically (it was off to a really good start), is because his announcement of not participating in primary
"Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future.
Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted."
Paul just wasnt fierce enough.
The reason why his campaign slowed down so dramatically (it was off to a really good start), is because his announcement of not participating in primary "Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future. Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted." Paul just wasnt fierce enough.
That did discourage some people, I remember that news hitting the DP like a thunderbolt. Everybody freaked, most of them under the erroneous impression that Ron PAul had dropped out of the race. But I thought it was a good call then and still do now. Campaign resources are scarce, why spend millions getting 5% of the vote and no delegates in CA or another primary State when you can spend those resources winning delegates in caucus States?
What killed the movement? A simple question with a simple question. Ron Paul supporters did. I do not mean all the fighting and power grabs. I do not mean the conspiraces. There were some really outrageous ones but those are just minor. What killed the Ron Paul movement is the idea that you can change the system that has been running for nearly 300 years. It's frankly amazing the blinders that these individuals put on themselves. They know the system is working against them. They openly say that it is. They have conspiracies of shadowy groups or men of power actively twarting their moves. They make the RNC into this monolothic institute and they believe they can topple it by playing by that institution's rules. It is just mind blogging that people can delude themselves into such a behavior. The State will grow. It cannot be controlled. All these ideas of Jeffersionian democracy and Constitutionalism. What do these people know of history? Spin them a good tale about liberty and they will believe it. Give them a document that created a centralized government with greater power and they will venerate it while they scream about small government. Such a dismal fate we have. My only hope is that we move into an area where we are beyond control of other's predilections. I think it might be space. Seems silly but space is so vast that it cannot be controlled. It is a limitless frontier.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Seems silly but space is so vast that it cannot be controlled. It is a limitless frontier.
Until teleportation, and then we can have our cops come right into our bathrooms while we pee!
Then we will all be safer.
Andrew,
I'm not sure how much the Paul supporters deluded themselves into beleiving they can change the system, I think that Paul himself may have done that. His rhetoric is/was all about constitutional government and the US Constitution in general. A lot of people who became Paul supporters were apathetic non-political individuals, or independents/borderline party supporters. They weren't coming from a position of political awareness that the system has nearly unstoppable beureaucratic momentum. They were coming from the mainstream "every vote counts, democracy works" position. Paul knew this, and I don't blame him for using the rhetoric. If someone tried to get mainstream coverage by telling people not to vote but to actively subvert the existing system, and the Constitution itself, it would have gone absolutely nowhere.
The good news is that I think a good chunk of supporters have come around and realize that the political system is hopeless, but that doesn't mean the movement is dead. I've been going to freedom rallies/events around Philadelphia since 2009 or so, and have watched as a lot of Paul supporters became disinchanted with the political process. That doesn't mean they gave up, just that they realized that Paul was more important as an educational figurehead rather than some hope of salvation. The real work is ahead of us.
I stick to my position from way back on the C4L forums in 2009 when Tom Woods called me a drone--before he was an anarchist, and he's since admitted that he was wrong then.
Ron Paul had a unique chance in history, and he used it to convince the widest potential audience for anarchism that liberty is limited constitutional government. That's his legacy.
He should have spent a months training with Stefan Molyneux, learning how to present solid arguments for anarchism, learning how to debate. Instead, he argued publicly for liberty-as-government, and mislead an entire generation of people. The fact that some of us came to be anarchists is a fine coincidence, but RP isn't a principled immovable superhero, rather he's just a politician--that is, ultimately he was only comfortable saying what he thought people were comfortable hearing. It's purely his fault he didn't consult Molyneux on how to present anarchist arguments to the masses.
"Ron Paul had a unique chance in history, and he used it to convince the widest potential audience for anarchism that liberty islimited constitutional government. That's his legacy."
Liberty is. It is not government that creates liberty. Liberty exists separately from government. Government can only befuddle it. Frankly I'm done with the hero worship for people like Adam Kokesh or Stefan Molyneux or Tom Woods. They are just people, with their own ideas and their own methods. They are not paragons. They do not need to be consulted. This is exactly what has/is going to happen with the Ron Paul movement. You make a paragon and when he is gone the the moral dies. That is why you hear all this talk now of trying to continue "the revolution," because everything was about Ron Paul. They made the personality more important then the ideas. That's why Republicans still worship Reagan. They made an idol and nothing else can live up to it. One would question if they really want something to stand up to it or if they are content with the pure nostalgia of the past.
By the way, this is a general comment but why is constitutional government "limited?" Compared to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution is a radical divergence of "limited." The funny thing is that people celebrate this! God what lies people have been feed about the revolutionary period. It is grossly overromanticized.
"By the way, this is a general comment but why is constitutional government "limited?" Compared to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution is a radical divergence of "limited." The funny thing is that people celebrate this! God what lies people have been feed about the revolutionary period. It is grossly overromanticized. "
This isn't what people think of when they celebrate the constitution, but I've always thought that the constitution did one thing do really promote liberty which was to guarantee certain rights regardless of what individual states would have done. It also prevented the troubling possibility of direct conflict between the states themselves.
:This isn't what people think of when they celebrate the constitution, but I've always thought that the constitution did one thing do really promote liberty which was to guarantee certain rights regardless of what individual states would have done. It also prevented the troubling possibility of direct conflict between the states themselves.:
Define these "certain rights" and give examples of possible conflicts between states which would be resolved by the 1780s version of the Constitution
Well this is according to Wikipedia buuttt
As an external (though interested) observer this is my comment.
If you like me believe the goals of his campaigns were to increase awareness in limited constitutional government, sound money politics and individual liberties, they were a smashing success. I dare to say nobody in the world has done more for these causes than Ron Paul in the last two decades: people from all other world have listened to his message because, plainly put, they have nobody else to turn to. They either have the usual crop of "local Republicans" or anarcho-capitalists and libertarians who often struggle to appear sane, let alone make convincing arguments. Ron Paul taught them not only these values are right and should be defended, but you may also sound like a rational person while doing so.
Ron Paul was the first to know he had no chance of winning a nomination and, since he has served so long, he probably also expected the damnatio memoriae he's been subjected to. Yes, the Republicans' ridiculous measures to minimize his success are despicable but they also showed everybody what they really stand for. Yes, the press has gone to incredible lengths to demonize or ignore him but in doing so it revealed itself for the gang of lackeys and crooked liars it really is: we don't need Big Media anymore. We can use our computers or cellphones, type "Ron Paul news" in the search window and start reading. It takes less than going to your living room and turn on the TV, let alone go outside a buy a newspaper.
The big problem right now is, of course, Ron Paul will retire shortly from his long and honorable political career. He will remain highly influential but he has deserved some rest. Who will take up the challenge? While there are more pro-liberty writers, scholars and thinkers than we could imagine just fifteen years ago, there's a lack of a charismatic public figure, a figure people can rally behind. Ron Paul was the perfect man for the job: his sombre dignity and restrained rhetoric the example of how we should behave in public. We have enough flamboyant self-proclaimed savers already. We don't need them: our ideals don't promote salvation through a superior ideal, be it political, economical or religious. We just want to be free to make our own success or failure history without behind hindered and lectured at any turn.
I understand this a very tough challenge: by nature people attracted to liberty ideals tend to become businessmen, entrepreneurs, doctors, farmers etc. And rightly so: those are the sectors where you can build your success with your own hands. Politics is seen as tainted and as possessing a corrupting influence: I have seen a few promising figure going down the path of Saruman from The Lord of the Rings. It takes an extraordinary man to both survive this taint and remain a beacon of hope for millions. Who's up for the challenge?
@LogisticEarth No, we need someone who will actually stand up to feminism.
Please define what feminism is, because I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about. Many feminists persue their goals via statist means, but the general message of feminism jives with much of the liberty movement.
Andrew Cain: hashem:Ron Paul had a unique chance in history, and he used it to convince the widest potential audience for anarchism that liberty islimited constitutional government. That's his legacy.Liberty is. It is not government that creates liberty. Liberty exists separately from government. Government can only befuddle it.
hashem:Ron Paul had a unique chance in history, and he used it to convince the widest potential audience for anarchism that liberty islimited constitutional government. That's his legacy.
I think you misunderstood me. My point is precisely that liberty ISN'T government, but RP's legacy will be that he convinced an entire generational audience of potential anarchists that liberty IS "limited constitutional government".
As for the hero worship, you're way off. Where did I even get close to worshipping Tom Woods? Or Ron Paul? As for Stefan Molyneux, I recognized him for the value he could have contributed to Ron Paul--that is, SM is a magnificent in the way of presenting knock-down pro-anarchism anti-state arguments in a way that the public can get excited about instead of feeling like they have to challenge him, he's an incredible salesmen in that regard which is exactly the type of help politicians need, and that's exactly the type of help RP needed. Nobody is saying RP could only obtain that help from "the superman god Stefan Molyneux", but SM is rather a great figure that I can think of who could have provided exactly the type of help I feel RP could have used.
"I think you misunderstood me. My point is precisely that liberty ISN'T government, but RP's legacy will be that he convinced an entire generational audience of potential anarchists that liberty IS "limited constitutional government".'
Oh I was not misunderstanding you. Just reinforcing what I thought you were saying.
"As for the hero worship, you're way off. Where did I even get close to worshipping Tom Woods? Or Ron Paul? As for Stefan Molyneux, I recognized him for the value he could have contributed to Ron Paul--that is, SM is a magnificent in the way of presenting knock-down pro-anarchism anti-state arguments in a way that the public can get excited about instead of feeling like they have to challenge him, he's an incredible salesmen in that regard which is exactly the type of help politicians need, and that's exactly the type of help RP needed. Nobody is saying RP could only obtain that help from "the superman god Stefan Molyneux", but SM is rather a great figure that I can think of who could have provided exactly the type of help I feel RP could have used."
When did I claim you were engaging in hero-worship? I just think that the idea that we need to consult people in order to understand if we are doing something right is erroneous to a certain degree. I mean sure its nice to given/take advice but the mentality that there is a person that one must consult is a bit off putting. If you feel that the RP campaign, in order to win, must have consulted Stefan in some manner then I believe you would fall into this category. However, if you do not think such a thing then you do not fall into that category.
the Ron Paul Revolution is more or less over
Hell no. If we did nothing more than money bombs for Revolution PAC to send every person on the RP mailing list a few copies of Economics in One Lesson and Bastiat's The Law, we'd be killing it. But there's a lot more that can be done than that. Ron Paul really has put classical liberal philosophy back on the radar. He's made it respectable to talk about these subjects socially and that's a big, big deal. When you're at a place where "libertarian" equals "crazy" in general society, you're really hurting, and that's where we've been since, oh, at least the 1930's. Ron Paul almost single-handedly undid 80 years of beat-down that libertarianism has been unable to escape despite the inexhaustible efforts of the best and brightest academics, such as Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and many others. They laid the foundation... and Ron Paul has raised the barn. Now, we just need to set up the disco ball and have us a classical liberal shindig... all the statists will become jealous that we're having so much fun and join up.
:-P
Clayton -
>RP's legacy will be that he convinced an entire generational audience of potential anarchists that liberty IS "limited constitutional government".
I think Kakugo underplays this point, but what better way to create a reaction against the system than to play along with their game? The greatest result of the campaign was to show it's impossibility. Nobody can see government being limited in the present context any longer.
Perhaps in can be imagined thus: 1. Conflict generates energy -> Conflict resolution fails -> Refined reaction -> back to 1
The ball is swinging back into the court of the anarchists. It's not entirely obvious, but campaigning for limited goverment did more for anarchism than if he had tried to do so directly. As a side, Ron Paul was reading Rothbard before you were even a twinkle in your father's eye so a little revernce might be in order. :P
So now it's official
All you did was post the bill of rights Neo. Are you stating that these rights did not exist before the constitution?
Lot of cool stuff here.
Some thoughts, not sure if it will resonate, I'm a bit Pollyanaish.
Hopefully one of the effects that comes from his campaign is that the followers (millions) will in small numbers grab onto the idea that, the individual members can make a difference. Ron Paul made a difference. I've found that there are a lot more people like me, and at minimum I try not to crush the seeds of libertarian thought, even if they're mired in minarchy or even fiscal conservativsm, but stil socially liberal. Any part of government that can be pushed back, frees us all.
I don't think the movement has died, though if the question is when did the campaign fail, other's have pointed out that there's no way Ron Paul thought he'd win. But I think he actually won more than he probably dreamed of both in 2k8 and in 2k12. The republican party had to actually go on the offensive this time, to push his message out. They had to change the platform to bring in some fiscal issues. There's also a clearly defined vacuum for strongly conservative fiscal policy, and they have an opportunity to step into it.
If they don't actually make any changes this next year or so, by the end of 2013 I think you'll see a much more vocal and angry mass starting to get active. That frightens me somewhat also. It gets even worse if the Fiscal Cliff is hit, the credit rating for the US drops and inflation rises dramatically, all very real possibilities. If that happens, I think you have an opportunity for a third party to come in and upset everything. Very rapidly. I believe a large portion (35-40%) is trying to shoehorn themselves into one party or the other. A truly libertarian platform has the potential to coalesce within a year or 2 if the Republican's gain power, don't make serious fiscal changes, and the economy drops like a rock. I'd lay this momentum at the feet of Ron Paul. Not alone, but as the tip of the spear. Perhaps one might call him the lightning rod, but he rests on top of a very deep and very sound foundation. d
Another point, I think we ought to remember Ron Paul is 77. I think he had to decide where to focus the remaining energy he had in this last year of his public service. And his has been service in the best possible way it could be. Late in 2011 and early in 2012 I recall there were some articles about Ron Paul being a bit exhausted and worn down by the whirlwind tour. I don't think we should underestimate the physical toll on and old man whose passion never waned, but whose body did its best. It may turn out to have been a wise choice to focus instead the energy of this last drive on the Fed Audit, while the chance existed.
Now in terms of the RNC's underhanded delegate battle, again I think it was a win, not in numbers of delegates, but in the fact that they had to actually fight Paul. Sometimes you win a battle and it costs you more than you win. I hope at minimum that the egregious behavior motivates some to become more active at the local level in fighting for freedom and fiscal conservatism in their local communities.
Someone mentioned the utter futility of fighting the expandning state. I agree that the results in these specific battles to curb government are most likely futile. But it takes courage to fight these battles. And like I said, the battles in and of themselves even when lost convert people.
I'm curious to see the outcome of the 2012 campaign. In 2k8 the roots of the Tea Party were laid in Paul's grassroots campaign. There are other reasons for it's rise, and I'm sure none of us here are fans of the warhawk and religious fervor that seems to be a part of the binding force for that movement, but there is a very strong fiscal responsibility tone to the Tea Party. Ron Paul should rightly be considered a huge part of that. But what's going to rise from 2k12? It would be interesting if we were to see a Tea Party analogue that also embraced civil liberties, were anti-drug war, pro-states rights, still fiscally conservative, but also Peace Loving "isolationists." I don't think it's far-fetched to imagine this might happen.
Finally, in terms of Ron Paul's love of constitutional government. I've read his works on Lew Rockwell.com. I don't buy it. I've always thought of the constitution as a line in the sand that he could point to as a rule of law which we'd abandoned. I always took his message as "Shouldn't we at least head back that way?" If Lew loved him, and the impression from Lew is that he does, I just can't believe Ron's not a Rothbardian ancap. Last point about his apparent love for constitutional government. I don't believe that Ron would ever publicly speak out against the document he's sword to protect and defend. And the line in the sand that he has, is sufficient to point the direction the country needs to go.
Anyway, I'm disappointed and a bit dismayed, but the youth are involved. I may not like Paul Ryan on some of his issues, but dammit he's my age... And his ideas in fiscal issues at least sound libertarian.
Last point about hero worship.
Heroes are to me those who handle themselves with dignity and grace, who prod us and poke us to stand up look around and think. To embrace our personal power in our daily lives and especially in our intellectual life.
We should not worship, but I'll always hold a special place in my heart for every man who stood up and encouraged me to think for myself, and to embrace freedom.
We hold Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in high regard for their courage to fight those very battles. We hold them up as standards of independence and courage. They are the John Galt's in many ways of our society. Murray Rothbard, Mises, Hayek they are men who we should hold up not as perfect, or idols, but as examples of the type of men we can become with courage and dignity.
Ron Paul is such a man today. He deserves at minimum respect and honor for his courage, dedication, and tenacity in the face of what must have seemed like futility.
A teacher of mine when I was young, was an alcoholic and got removed from teaching midway through my 4th grade year. But he will always be my favorite teacher. When I was bored and he still had to teach the class, and he couldn't respond directly to all of my questions, he'd pull me aside and get me to read through and encyclopedia, and right a little something about a topic I was interested in. Do I worship him? No, but I'm grateful for how he encouraged me to be curious, without trying to crush my spirit and my passion. Those are the kinds of men I hold in high esteem.
This is off topic of OP, but read through this...
"Can anyone else spot the hilarious irony?"
I left a hint.
Yeah, I tried to go back and edit....
Maybe if I'd paid more attention in class :)
Jefferson embrace freedom? Jefferson was a disgusting hypocrite who created the idea of the "Empire of Liberty." Did you think Woodrow Wilson came up with the idea of spreading democracy and American values by himself? A pox on Jefferson for giving us the empire we know today.