Some here don't like him or don't like Libertarians running for office, but I've just started reading this and think it is if anything a great introduction to Libertarian philosophy explained very coherently and in a way that I feel will really stick with the apparently large number of people who are buying it currently. It's well written and one can tell that Ron Paul is very well read on the subject and most definitely reads the Mises Institute website and great portion of the books available on this site. He reads like someone who could easily be a lecturer here or his own economic advisor. And he brings an insider approach instead of the usual theoretical approach or beltway approach of most libertarians today, which is actually great because he confirms with anecdotal evidence all of the theories (some of his information I wasn't even aware of and is good info in general).
I haven't finished reading it yet, but so far it is a very smooth read and I feel it will be very successful for libertarianism. Many of the things he says are just common sense things that many of us libertarians take for granted as being right and conservatives and democrats take for granted as being wrong. Forget the election, I feel the real success is in the high sales of this book.
The all Ron Paul movement opened the eyes of many people through out the world. He got people excited about expressing what they really believed, and interested in finding out more and thinking about the fundamentals of government. This is a man who spoke against the minimum wage, the Cuba embargo, the central bank, war against terrorism, military bases spread around the world, drug prohibition, health care as a right and other hot issues in televisioned debates! This book will only represent a small portion of his success.
Here's some other stuff going on that Dr. Ron Paul inspired.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
I agree. I think some feel he is doing the wrong thing by trying to get in government only to be blocked by statist majority. But I don't think that is the point. He isn't detailing how he is going to get in office and bring utopia through a process of downscaling the government (for instance privatizing the post office and schools or whatever else). Really most of this stuff will only happen when people are ready for it. I think he has the same idea of how difficult this process is going to be as any of us. Running for office gave him a big platform to show the nation that anti-war and libertarianism are consistant with one another. And what's more he spoke about actual economics instead of Reaganite platitudes (the look on Romney and McCain's faces during debates was worth all of the money sent to Ron for sure). I think that has always been the mission of sites like lewrockwell.com and mises.org.
In my opinion, if TV were as free market as the internet and especially amazon.com and others... he would've been the nominee ages ago.
JohnSchreimann:Many of the things he says are just common sense things that many of us libertarians take for granted as being right and conservatives and democrats take for granted as being wrong.
Ron Paul for many, is a gateway to libertarianism and Austrian Economics. During the presidential debates last year (2007), Ron Paul opened the door with his sound arguments in regards to liberty and economic policy. He was the only one that made logical sense out of both Republicans and Democrats. Although not perfect, he is a step in the right direction. Eventually I stumbled upon Mises.com. Ever since mid-late 2007, I have been hooked and enlightened by Faculty and members of the Mises Institute, to rational and logical arguments in favor of libertarianism and Austrian Economics.
JohnSchreimann:Forget the election, I feel the real success is in the high sales of this book.
I am not sure if this was posted on this forum or not, but there is a Ron Paul Revolution Book organization, that is trying to get the word out as well. Prices are slightly cheaper than if you go to a bookstore, and even cheaper if you buy in bulk.
http://www.ronpaulrevolutionbook.com/
They also have a meetup to discuss the book. I've been to a few meetings. Ron Paul has attracted much of the liberals just as much as the conservatives. It is interesting to note discussions and debates countering popular misconceptions such public vs. private schools, government fiat money, centralization of powers. It's kinda like this forum, sans the Austrian Economics, not to mention a good place to practice stengthen my libertarian arguements.
I feel the same way. I'm really inspired by how Ron Paul has been able to reach so many people, and inspire them in so many ways.
Ron Paul's campaign has demonstrated how right Albert Jay Nock was when he wrote about the Remnant.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/the_remnant.html
JohnSchreimann: Some here don't like him or don't like Libertarians running for office, but I've just started reading this and think it is if anything a great introduction to Libertarian philosophy explained very coherently and in a way that I feel will really stick with the apparently large number of people who are buying it currently. It's well written and one can tell that Ron Paul is very well read on the subject and most definitely reads the Mises Institute website and great portion of the books available on this site. He reads like someone who could easily be a lecturer here or his own economic advisor. And he brings an insider approach instead of the usual theoretical approach or beltway approach of most libertarians today, which is actually great because he confirms with anecdotal evidence all of the theories (some of his information I wasn't even aware of and is good info in general). I haven't finished reading it yet, but so far it is a very smooth read and I feel it will be very successful for libertarianism. Many of the things he says are just common sense things that many of us libertarians take for granted as being right and conservatives and democrats take for granted as being wrong. Forget the election, I feel the real success is in the high sales of this book.
It might be a good introduction to people who haven't been introduced to the philosophy of liberty as of yet, but generally speaking it seems to be that most people who are buying it up are just those that have already been introduced to the philosophy and are planning on redistributing it to others. That's fine, if you have a lot of money to waste on these overpriced things, but for my money I think you could introduce a lot more people to the message with much cheaper alternatives. I'm not trying to bad mouth the book, I'm sure it's fine and dandy - I really don't know though, because I don't have it, nor would I read it if I did have it. I'm already a libertarian and I have better things to do than read introductions about something I already feel amply read on - but like the Ron Paul campaign, it seems like a big, towering bulk of inefficient production which, though reaching a great deal of people, reaches the masses at a great cost in capital.
Aside from feeling apathetic about the book, I think it's also kind of stifling to call the Ron Paul campaign a "revolution."
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
liberty student: JohnSchreimann:Forget the election, I feel the real success is in the high sales of this book. I feel the same way. I'm really inspired by how Ron Paul has been able to reach so many people, and inspire them in so many ways.
If only you too had $30 million to blow!
I'm not sure what you mean.
JohnSchreimann: I'm not sure what you mean.
I think Nicky is just jealous his allowance doesn't allow him to compete with Ron Paul.
Niccolò:If only you too had $30 million to blow!
lol. Those were donations, the bulk of the money raised by regular people, much less verbose than you, but infinitely more creative, positive and productive when they set a goal and fulfill it creatively.
Niccolò:It might be a good introduction to people who haven't been introduced to the philosophy of liberty as of yet, but generally speaking it seems to be that most people who are buying it up are just those that have already been introduced to the philosophy and are planning on redistributing it to others.
Right, which is called viral marketing. It's why Paul has raised so much money, and reached so many people. Instead of making them feel bad like your rants do, he appeals to people's sense of opportunity and hope when selling liberty.
Niccolò:That's fine, if you have a lot of money to waste on these overpriced things, but for my money I think you could introduce a lot more people to the message with much cheaper alternatives.
Why do you care? Is this where you show your colors as a jealous socialist?
Niccolò:I'm not trying to bad mouth the book, I'm sure it's fine and dandy - I really don't know though, because I don't have it, nor would I read it if I did have it.
Yeah, you never bad mouth anything about Ron Paul...
And of course you wouldn't read it. Why read something when you can talk about who wrote it, what it says, what it costs and why people would buy it? All great intellectuals write book reviews without reading the book.
Niccolò:but like the Ron Paul campaign, it seems like a big, towering bulk of inefficient production which, though reaching a great deal of people, reaches the masses at a great cost in capital.
And it's at a great cost in capital, based on what?
When are you going to figure out, than no one is going to follow you, until you clean up your attitude and find a way to market yourself without alienating normal people who have jobs, raise families and own property? The angry young man routine is played out and tired. Now you're resenting that a 72 year old country Doctor is becoming an icon with a watered down message, and yet his celebrity continues to promote the message, as distasteful and disgusting as that is for you, because he's busy attacking evil, not other libertarians.
Niccolò:Aside from feeling apathetic about the book, I think it's also kind of stifling to call the Ron Paul campaign a "revolution."
It's stifling that you think you are revolutionary. A bunch of childish ranting about vulgar libertarians, when you completely overlook real evil in the world, and have little understanding of the North American political, economic or social experience.
I mean that the economic efficiency of Ron Paul is lacking. Sure, he's convinced some people of his brand of libertarianism - a self-destructive one - and many of them have polarized radically, but at what cost? Subtract the people that have been subsequently turned off to libertarianism because of Ron Paul - some of our greatest possible allies, i.e. the feminists and the immigrants - and does $30 million really seem like a great investment?
Just because the product is similar does not mean the mode of production is. Transfer $30 million to say, the FSP or another Agoristendeavor and would you find better results? I've calculated that you would.
Compare it to socialism. If you have enough capital, perhaps you can construct a house, but at what cost? According to Mises the socialist can't know, but to any external viewers the answer is blatantly obvious how futile and wasteful the project is.
That's the problem of politics - it's top down central planning.
Niccolò:some of our greatest possible allies, i.e. the feminists
Libertas est Veritas: Niccolò:some of our greatest possible allies, i.e. the feministsHuh? I'd agree, if there still were first-wave feminists around. But it's all institutionalized third-wave misandry now.
I suppose Wendy McElroy and Roderick Long don't exist?
Brainpolice:I suppose Wendy McElroy and Roderick Long don't exist?
The book isn't that good anyways. Now I've only read the first ~50 pages, but It's loaded with nothingness. He quotes fellow americans, appeals ot american Identity, however he never actually outlines some form of logical argument. I see it as only attractive to people who've already come to agree with his campaign, or are on the verge of. He uses "Republican" and "American" identities as if they're proof enough he's right, which Is hardly going to convince anyone new. I see Human Action and all the other economicly and ethically centered books so much more useful in convincing new people than quoting Taft and previous "revered" americans to prove they have the same position as you.
And then there's the whole Constitution thing he seems infatuated with.
liberty student: Right, which is called viral marketing.
Right, which is called viral marketing.
Again trying to talk to me about marketing? And yes, it is sort of an example of viral marketing - though true viral marketing tends to not be so focused on individual by individual passes; however, this does not mean that it is a particularly efficient way of going about it. What's the price of a Paul book? $20? $15?Say you distribute this to about 10 people (if you're an organizer of anything, that shouldn't be too difficult). What's the cost? Between $150 - $200? That's A LOT of money for most of the people that Ron Paul is targeting - the younger age group between 16 - 25. In contrast, say that you were to pass around three of the several MLL pamphlets written by SEK3. The cost of one is about $0.80. Multiply this by three - for each separate pamphlet - and to give it to ten people roughly translates to a monetary price of... $24
More importantly, any marketing student will tell you that a book is a terrible marketing tool. The purpose of marketing is simply to attract, not to explain, per se - though to a point that is permissible. Giving someone a book WILL NOT attract most people. With a short pamphlet, however, the possibility for a successful marketing ploy increases. So what am I getting at? Basically, the Paul supporters spend a lot of capital in order to get a relatively low impact; Agorists, on the contrast, spend very little and receive a very high impact. The problem is, however, Ron Paul had such a high level of capital that it drained a large part of the libertarian market. This IS A PROBLEM. If you don't think it is, ask the Soviets... er... nevermind.
liberty student: It's why Paul has raised so much money, and reached so many people. Instead of making them feel bad like your rants do, he appeals to people's sense of opportunity and hope when selling liberty.
It's why Paul has raised so much money, and reached so many people. Instead of making them feel bad like your rants do, he appeals to people's sense of opportunity and hope when selling liberty.
liberty student: Why do you care? Is this where you show your colors as a jealous socialist?
No, this is where I show my colours as a student going for his MBA. I, as a part of the libertarian movement, am concerned about the nature of its production of education and progress. I feel that the broader movement is wasting a lot of potential resources and I am pointing it out.
Showing your true colours as a censoring authoritarian?
liberty student: And of course you wouldn't read it. Why read something when you can talk about who wrote it, what it says, what it costs and why people would buy it? All great intellectuals write book reviews without reading the book.
I'm not reviewing the book. I'm simply expressing my displeasure with the marketing measure.
liberty student: And it's at a great cost in capital, based on what?
See above.
liberty student:When are you going to figure out, than no one is going to follow you, until you clean up your attitude and find a way to market yourself without alienating normal people who have jobs, raise families and own property? The angry young man routine is played out and tired. Now you're resenting that a 72 year old country Doctor is becoming an icon with a watered down message, and yet his celebrity continues to promote the message, as distasteful and disgusting as that is for you, because he's busy attacking evil, not other libertarians.
First, I don't want people to follow me. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in convincing people to stand with me, which I have.
That's the problem with you reformists. You call yourselves libertarians but your mindset is very much devoted to central planning.
liberty student: It's stifling that you think you are revolutionary. A bunch of childish ranting about vulgar libertarians, when you completely overlook real evil in the world, and have little understanding of the North American political, economic or social experience.
banned: The book isn't that good anyways. Now I've only read the first ~50 pages, but It's loaded with nothingness. He quotes fellow americans, appeals ot american Identity, however he never actually outlines some form of logical argument. I see it as only attractive to people who've already come to agree with his campaign, or are on the verge of. He uses "Republican" and "American" identities as if they're proof enough he's right, which Is hardly going to convince anyone new. I see Human Action and all the other economicly and ethically centered books so much more useful in convincing new people than quoting Taft and previous "revered" americans to prove they have the same position as you. And then there's the whole Constitution thing he seems infatuated with.
He's trying to appeal to emotion as oppossed to logic - like Human Action or For a New Liberty. The problem is that the Constitution isn't that romantic and Hoover Taft or whatever DEFINITELY isn't romantic.
It's like bringing a girl a bouqet of dandalions and expecting her to marry you.
Libertas est Veritas: Brainpolice:I suppose Wendy McElroy and Roderick Long don't exist? And how much do they actually influence mainstream feminist thinking? Or have I imagined every legal constraint put on men in the name of feminism?
A possible ally isn't an ally that already stands with you. A possible ally is one that agrees with much of your theory and can be convinced with your arguments given certain appeals.
I think you're being persnickety. And the book has nothing to do with a romanticization of the constitution -- though I doubt you've even read it to make such a characterization. And there's nothing in this book that is anti-immigrant or against feminists. Though, why are these groups of people any more important than any other? I didn't say the book was lowest common denominator marketing. Or even a marketing effort. That would be a meaningless gesture. Mises.org doesn't write article after article keeping people updated on the feminist movement either, but few would argue that it is not an indispensable to distributing information about libertarianism. If pandering to groups is the big idea, then people will never grow up and think of themselves as individuals. But continue to be groupthink infants. People like that are not ready to call themselves individualists and it doesn't matter.
JohnSchreimann: I think you're being persnickety. And the book has nothing to do with a romanticization of the constitution -- though I doubt you've even read it to make such a characterization. And there's nothing in this book that is anti-immigrant or against feminists. Though, why are these groups of people any more important than any other? I didn't say the book was lowest common denominator marketing. Or even a marketing effort. That would be a meaningless gesture. Mises.org doesn't write article after article keeping people updated on the feminist movement either, but few would argue that it is not an indispensable to distributing information about libertarianism. If pandering to groups is the big idea, then people will never grow up and think of themselves as individuals. But continue to be groupthink infants. People like that are not ready to call themselves individualists and it doesn't matter.
Well, I'm sure that sounded relevant when you were writing it, at least.
I'm sure your pompous and vague criticism at the outset sounded relevant to you.
banned: I've only read the first ~50 pages
I've only read the first ~50 pages
And Niccolo has read zero pages. Yet we get two expert critiques of the text. Great!
Niccolò:He's trying to appeal to emotion as oppossed to logic - like Human Action or For a New Liberty. The problem is that the Constitution isn't that romantic and Hoover Taft or whatever DEFINITELY isn't romantic.
This is what I am talking about. You don't get the American mentality. The Constitution is infintely romantic to Americans. Moreso than any other book or document, short of the Bible.
If you go through the whole text, there are more mentions of Rothbard and Mises than any former president or American politician. And he also quotes Americans like Walt Whitman (not just "founding fathers")... in addition to quoting Bastiat and at one point Bertrand Russel (the point being his quoting is all over the place). He quotes a few senators and other politicians (like Jeff Sessions) in order to mock their propaganda. In the case of Jeff Sessions, Sessions brought up the constitution in 2007 when he said "some in this chamber love the constitution more than they love their safety. We should send President Bush a letter thanking him for protecting us." His quoting is not that much of the book, but he makes good use of what he does quote... hardly to appeal to any imaginary authority of some other time. But to make points.
liberty student: Niccolò:He's trying to appeal to emotion as oppossed to logic - like Human Action or For a New Liberty. The problem is that the Constitution isn't that romantic and Hoover Taft or whatever DEFINITELY isn't romantic. This is what I am talking about. You don't get the American mentality. The Constitution is infintely romantic to Americans. Moreso than any other book or document, short of the Bible.
Surely you've heard of Lysander Spooner? Or this American (me), who despises the constitution and holds that it has no authority (just as Spooner did). I most certainly want nothing to do with some collectivist "American mentality", especially one that fetishizes the law.
I think I see the problem. You both are going to discredit him because he believes in minarchism (and the constitution) instead of full purist anarchism.
Though I am for anarchism, I have no hatred for minarchists. This is irrational. I think if you espouse the same economic principles as being true (and Ron has demonstrated great knowledge of Austrian economics), it is silly to simply have a scathing hatred of libertarians for not going all the way and believing in private police, military, etc.
I believe that the functionality of a minarchist, and especially a constitutionalist, barely differs from your average liberal or conservative when it comes down to it. Their minimal state becomes a floating abstraction that can be entirely comparative and the constitution becomes a legitimizing device devoid of any principle.
Though I am for anarchism, I have no hatred for minarchists. This is irrational.
Neither do I. Hate is a strong word. But they most certainly do not merit outright endorsement.
I think if you espouse the same economic principles as being true
Anarchists and minarchists don't necessarily espouse the same economic principles, or if they do, they nonetheless draw entirely different conclusions from them. Furthermore, economic principles alone does not suffice. What about principles of justice? Espousing laissez-faire economics is meaningless if not even counterproductive if it has no real backbone grounded in libertarian theory and if the objective content of one's policy positions nonetheless contradict laissez-faire in various ways.
it is silly to simply have a scathing hatred of libertarians for not going all the way and believing in private police, military, etc.
Again, at least in my case, there is no such hatred. Hell, I don't necessarily hate state-socialists or fascists (as people) for that matter. What I find to be irrational is an outright endorsement of this and to essentially concede to the minarchists or to continue to enable their delusion.
Brainpolice:Surely you've heard of Lysander Spooner? Or this American (me), who despises the constitution and holds that it has no authority (just as Spooner did). I most certainly want nothing to do with some collectivist "American mentality", especially one that fetishizes the law.
Paul is not trying to recruit Spooner or you. That's my damn point. No one gives a crap what Nicky thinks. He plays within his incestuous little coven of anarchists, and spits on everyone else.
It's one thing to think that the agora is the only way to bring about liberty.
It's another thing to alienate 99.5% of the population and think you can accomplish it.
Paul understands that there needs to be a fundamental shift. That gradualism as a short term strategy is not only useful and desirable but necessary. The masses don't metamorphisize into angry young men overight and start reading Rothbard.
What do you guys get, that Paul is NOT speaking to you? Are you lonely? Insecure? Need someone to pay attention to you (like Nick's sad blog rants crying for the attention his parents have denied him)?
Nicky spits on me and others, but a good many of us are here because of Paul. And we're ready to learn and listen, but not to be ridiculed and spoken down to.
Nicky's lame little game (which you constantly endorse with your timely defenses) undoes whatever good Paul has done, and doesn't seek to add anything. Nick's the wealth destruction of inspiration. The wealth destruction of populist inertia.
The problem is that we don't think that political populism is conductive to the end being sought. In fact, it undermines it. So yes, I will gladly counteract "populist inertia" and faith in the political process as means towards the ends of liberty. However, if by "populist inertia" you mean the economic means or the inertia of society itself independant of political bonds, I gladly endorse it and proclaim the political process to be entirely contrary to it on a fundamental level.
What means towards ends? All you guys do is mentally masturbate in tiny corners of the internet. Do you really think you're bringing on the revolution? Arrogance and delusions of grandeur.
liberty student: What means towards ends? All you guys do is mentally masturbate in tiny corners of the internet. Do you really think you're bringing on the revolution? Arrogance and delusions of grandeur.
This type of argument (if it can be considered one at all) personalizes it and consequentially distracts from the point actually being made. This post does nothing to address the criticism of the impracticality of political means towards libertarian ends, it merely shifts or avoids the burden of proof.
Why is so much attention being given to Ron Paul when there are far better, more consistent libertarian thinkers out there? I mean alright, the guy's good on the theory (to an extent), but if I am to devote scarce time to reading something I'd rather it be something like The Law or For A New Liberty (the actual libertarian manifesto) &c.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Brainpolice:This type of argument (if it can be considered one at all) personalizes it and consequentially distracts from the point actually being made. This post does nothing to address the criticism of the impracticality of political means towards libertarian ends, it merely shifts or avoids the burden of proof.
And yet you hypocritically indulge and encourage Nicky to personalize all of the time.
You can search for your burden of proof. There are people motivated and out doing things. They might be doing the wrong things, but no one is going to stop and take heed of the sidewalk foreman who leads from the seat, not the front.
Jon Irenicus: Why is so much attention being given to Ron Paul when there are far better, more consistent libertarian thinkers out there? I mean alright, the guy's good on the theory (to an extent), but if I am to devote scarce time to reading something I'd rather it be something like The Law or For A New Liberty (the actual libertarian manifesto) &c. -Jon
Because while people are recycling the books of the past, Paul is growing a movement in the present. Sure you have an obligation to be as educated and knowledgable as possible, but the attraction of actually gaining momentum, adding mass is pretty attractive, and in this regard Paul is the most successful libertarian ever.
Not only is he undermining statist Republicanism, he does it from within the state. He's actually doing more than talking.
JohnSchreimann: banned: I've only read the first ~50 pages And Niccolo has read zero pages. Yet we get two expert critiques of the text. Great!
What? I gave no implication that I was reviewing the book. I went further than Banned and said "I'm sure it's a fine book." I'm critiquing the purpose of the book, the premise of the book, the author, what the book is being promoted as, and the marketing implications people like Llewellyn Rockwell and whoever else at LewRockwell.com are advertising.
Niccolò:A possible ally isn't an ally that already stands with you. A possible ally is one that agrees with much of your theory and can be convinced with your arguments given certain appeals.