PDA

View Full Version : Just Because Ron’s A Republican




ziggy_encaoua
09-21-2007, 11:05 AM
I’ve recently found out though there are many with libertarian leanings that are refusing to support Ron because he’s Republican. Personally I think it’s really idiotic to judge somebody blindly upon a label but unfortunately people do & so it’s a battle to convince them that Ron Paul’s no stereotypical Republican. Its rather idiotic considering they usually agree with much of Ron Paul’s platform. I’d imagine this isn’t an uncommon problem?

nexalacer
09-21-2007, 11:07 AM
No, it's very common, and exactly what the state wants from us. It's easiest to put us into groups, because then we can't rebel with one voice against their oppression.

Divide et impera.

FrankRep
09-21-2007, 11:10 AM
Once when I was on the streets campaigning someone asked me what he was running as and I said Ron Paul is trying to get the Republican nomination. When the guy heard that he closed up and said "Nope! No Thank you. I'm never voting Republican again." I told the guy that Ron Paul's political views are Libertarian, but the guy closed up totally and nothing I would say would've mattered.

I've only ran into that problem once. No big deal.

mdh
09-21-2007, 11:15 AM
I’ve recently found out though there are many with libertarian leanings that are refusing to support Ron because he’s Republican. Personally I think it’s really idiotic to judge somebody blindly upon a label but unfortunately people do & so it’s a battle to convince them that Ron Paul’s no stereotypical Republican. Its rather idiotic considering they usually agree with much of Ron Paul’s platform. I’d imagine this isn’t an uncommon problem?

Only time I've ever seen this attitude is among hardcore Democrats; and they are pretty much never libertarian leaning. :p

10thAmendmentMan
09-21-2007, 11:16 AM
Just as there are Republican and Democrat partisans who play "us versus them" constantly, there are Libertarian partisans, too. This is just one of the multitude of reasons a party system is detrimental to a free republic.

Elwar
09-21-2007, 11:17 AM
We had a blue Ron Paul sign up and a lady walked by, we asked her if she'd like some information on Ron Paul.

She kept walking and said "I see blue...".

It took us a second to realize she thought it was "Democrat blue" so we shouted "He's Republican!"...too late.

Some people are just weird. Look at the amount of people who root for one football team or another even though all of an opposing team's players might sign on with their team they'll still support them.

Ron Paul Fan
09-21-2007, 11:17 AM
Who are these people you speak of going to support then Ziggy? You've just gotta try to nail into their heads that Dr. Paul is pretty much a libertarian and he ran as one in '88. He's currently their best chance if they want a libertarian type person in the White House. 3rd parties will never win in the current political system. I know people are turned off when you say, "Ron Paul is a Republican from Texas." I've had similar experiences where people say, "Oh no not another one." Some people are so close minded these days and that's a big problem. They here Republican and immediately think that all of them are like Bush and for the Iraq war. We just have to keep trying to educate people and pray that the media will help us somewhat in this regard as we get closer to the primaries.

BillyDkid
09-21-2007, 11:19 AM
I’ve recently found out though there are many with libertarian leanings that are refusing to support Ron because he’s Republican. Personally I think it’s really idiotic to judge somebody blindly upon a label but unfortunately people do & so it’s a battle to convince them that Ron Paul’s no stereotypical Republican. Its rather idiotic considering they usually agree with much of Ron Paul’s platform. I’d imagine this isn’t an uncommon problem?
The Libertarian Party needs to ask themselves are they pro-liberty or are they pro-the Libertarian Party. The whole point of forming the Libertarian Party was to promote liberty since there was no other party actually doing that. Now there is a candidate running who has a chance who actually believes in liberty and there is no legitimate excuse not to support him. The Libertarians have become partisan. They have become a dinky version of the two big parties. Of course, there are so few Libertarians (myself included) that it might not really matter.

mdh
09-21-2007, 11:21 AM
Who are these people you speak of going to support then Ziggy?

Mostly Obama; a few Hillary, a few Kucinich.

ziggy_encaoua
09-21-2007, 11:21 AM
Just as there are Republican and Democrat partisans who play "us versus them" constantly, there are Libertarian partisans, too. This is just one of the multitude of reasons a party system is detrimental to a free republic.

I agree

However isn't it the freedom of individuals to form political groupings?

American
09-21-2007, 11:21 AM
Only time I've ever seen this attitude is among hardcore Democrats; and they are pretty much never libertarian leaning. :p

or Religious Republicans....not many things scare me, but that group does.:rolleyes:

mdh
09-21-2007, 11:23 AM
The Libertarian Party needs to ask themselves are they pro-liberty or are they pro-the Libertarian Party. The whole point of forming the Libertarian Party was to promote liberty since there was no other party actually doing that. Now there is a candidate running who has a chance who actually believes in liberty and there is no legitimate excuse not to support him. The Libertarians have become partisan. They have become a dinky version of the two big parties. Of course, there are so few Libertarians (myself included) that it might not really matter.

Actually current statistics show that over 90% of LP membership support Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul is also a life member of the LNC.

To say that the LPfolk have become partisan just isn't true. There are a few, but they are a small minority, and I've found that they are generally more interested in what the LP can do for them than what they can do for the LP, anyways.

ziggy_encaoua
09-21-2007, 11:24 AM
Mostly Obama; a few Hillary, a few Kucinich.

More Kucinich then the other two

10thAmendmentMan
09-21-2007, 11:24 AM
I agree

However isn't it the freedom of individuals to form political groupings?

While parties are an extension of collectivism and group-think, I never said they should be banned (though that would be nice).

mdh
09-21-2007, 11:25 AM
or Religious Republicans....not many things scare me, but that group does.:rolleyes:

People seem to think we don't have many UberChristians on board. The fact is that we actually do, I just don't see them participating in this forum because this forum is full of things that they would not appreciate (trust me, I know a number of UberChristian folks in the campaign, they would not want to be around a lot of the things that get posted here).

ziggy_encaoua
09-21-2007, 11:26 AM
Only time I've ever seen this attitude is among hardcore Democrats

I did manage to convince a Democrat who's now supporting RP on their website...I'd add its an adult site

mdh
09-21-2007, 11:26 AM
While parties are an extension of collectivism and group-think, I never said they should be banned (though that would be nice).

People would pick-a-PAC and start voting their favorite PAC's slate of candidates. You'd end up with de-facto parties anyways.

Abolish those, and some other group steps in to create voting slates.

ziggy_encaoua
09-21-2007, 11:28 AM
People seem to think we don't have many UberChristians on board. The fact is that we actually do, I just don't see them participating in this forum because this forum is full of things that they would not appreciate

Yeah like free speech

nexalacer
09-21-2007, 11:29 AM
Yeah like free speech

lol

mdh
09-21-2007, 11:31 AM
Yeah like free speech

Not all UberChristians believe the government should restrict speech they don't like, though, they just actively choose for themselves not to be around it. These really are good folks. There is a difference between someone who is devout or extremely faithful and someone who is evangelical or wishes to impose their faith on others.

What's really funny is that nowadays you have evangelical atheists who are just as annoying as evangelical Christians and for the exact same reasons. :p

jblosser
09-21-2007, 11:35 AM
Yeah like free speech

We Christians who support Ron will (like Ron, who is a Christian thank you very much) defend to the death your right to say whatever fucking bullshit you want to say. We know the church doesn't need guns behind it, and having them is a Bad Thing.

We Christians who support Ron generally are well aware that this nation and other liberty movements have been founded by a mix of different people and beliefs, all of whom came to liberty for their own reasons. We don't care how we all got here, we care about restoring the Republic just like you do.

We Christians who support Ron are unfortunately by now pretty used to both the christofascists and the atheiofascists denigrating us for their own reasons as well. We would hopefully not run into that here, but we do anyway.

Stop participating in the same kinds of ugly collectivism Ron speaks out against and that the powers that be use to keep us divided.

ziggy_encaoua
09-21-2007, 11:35 AM
What's really funny is that nowadays you have evangelical atheists who are just as annoying as evangelical Christians and for the exact same reasons. :p

Even though I'm an atheist I'd agree

nexalacer
09-21-2007, 11:37 AM
What's really funny is that nowadays you have evangelical atheists who are just as annoying as evangelical Christians and for the exact same reasons. :p

That is the truth. It's funny to laugh at Christians who like to wrap themselves in the warm blanket of state authority, but its much worse when Atheists think they are the messenger of anti-religion in the world.

I think the trends of history show that religion will disappear when we have real freedom. Not to say there won't be spiritual thinking, but organized religion, the key to state power for centuries, has diminished in power since the development of classical liberalism. And when classical liberalism follows its logical course to anti-statism, it will lead to the destruction of organized religion.

In other words, there is no reason for Atheists to get "holier-than-thou"... their goal is a part of a natural progression.

jblosser
09-21-2007, 11:38 AM
While parties are an extension of collectivism and group-think, I never said they should be banned (though that would be nice).

The problem is not the parties themselves, it is the public education system which burns these notions into people's heads from 5yo on up that you "must pick a party" and "always vote for your party" and "a 3rd party vote is a waste" and "if you don't vote you can't complain". These ideas are brought to our kids at the end of a gun. Public education is the mechanism of their control, which is why Dewey and co. set it up in the first place. Free compulsory state education is on Marx's list of requirements for a totalitarian state too, you know.

mdh
09-21-2007, 11:38 AM
It's fine to be Christian.

It's fine to be an atheist.

It's fine to be a Jew, a Muslim, a Shinto, a Taoist, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Satanist, a Deist, an Agnostic, a Gnostic, a Roman Pantheonist, a Pagan, a lesbian neo-wiccan, or whatever you want to be.

But you're still no better than anyone else because of it. :)

ziggy_encaoua
09-21-2007, 11:42 AM
It's fine to be Christian.

It's fine to be an atheist.

It's fine to be a Jew, a Muslim, a Shinto, a Taoist, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Satanist, a Deist, an Agnostic, a Gnostic, a Roman Pantheonist, a Pagan, a lesbian neo-wiccan, or whatever you want to be.

But you're still no better than anyone else because of it. :)

Agreed

bygone
09-21-2007, 11:44 AM
No, it's very common, and exactly what the state wants from us. It's easiest to put us into groups, because then we can't rebel with one voice against their oppression.

Divide et impera.


Be careful with this lest they govern with one voice.

jblosser
09-21-2007, 11:47 AM
It's fine to be Christian.

It's fine to be an atheist.

It's fine to be a Jew, a Muslim, a Shinto, a Taoist, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Satanist, a Deist, an Agnostic, a Gnostic, a Roman Pantheonist, a Pagan, a lesbian neo-wiccan, or whatever you want to be.

But you're still no better than anyone else because of it. :)

It's fine to be a Republican.

It's fine to be a Libertarian.

It's fine to be a Democrat, a Green, a Communist, a Socialist, a Truther, a CFR member, an Anarcho-Capitalist, a Fed Chairman, or whatever you want to be.

You're still no better than anyone else because of it. But people may find your actions that derive from those perspectives have some value (good or bad), and you may find yourself and reality (e.g., the laws of economics) in varying degrees of agreement or disagreement for the same reasons.

;)

mdh
09-21-2007, 11:49 AM
Be careful with this lest they govern with one voice.

They don't already?

nexalacer
09-21-2007, 11:49 AM
Be careful with this lest they govern with one voice.

Telling *our* oppressors to fuck off with one voice would lead to no governance, not one-voice governance.

born2drv
09-21-2007, 11:49 AM
Next time you guys should say "Ron Paul is the only republican running who wants to end the war immediately, drastically reduce federal spending, eliminate income tax, and restore our personal liberties".

Don't just say he's a republican ;)

If they don't want to hear more after that, then screw 'em :rolleyes:

Taco John
09-21-2007, 11:52 AM
I’ve recently found out though there are many with libertarian leanings that are refusing to support Ron because he’s Republican. Personally I think it’s really idiotic to judge somebody blindly upon a label but unfortunately people do & so it’s a battle to convince them that Ron Paul’s no stereotypical Republican. Its rather idiotic considering they usually agree with much of Ron Paul’s platform. I’d imagine this isn’t an uncommon problem?

These are people that put party over principle. They're "L" Libertarians, not "l" libertarians.

Ignore them. They don't understand what's at stake, and history has shown that they don't matter anyway. These are the types that are Libertarians because they want to be part of an exclusive club, not really affect change.

jblosser
09-21-2007, 11:54 AM
Oh, right, the topic.

I never tell them he's a Republican until they ask. I'm not trying to hide it from them but the word is so loaded and divided in meaning it's basically meaningless. It would be nice if you could say "Republican" and have it mean "stay home, no IRS, states' rights", but those days are long gone. Sort of why I don't tell people I'm a Christian when I first meet them... oh wait the topic. ;)

I say "He's a 10-term US Congressman from Texas running for President. He has a 30 year 100% consistent record upholding the Constitution and defending liberty. He wants to shrink the national government back to the level allowed in the Constitution and send most things back to the States." Then after that if they ask which party if they have any kind of open mind at all it's easier. And when they ask I usually say "He's an old school, Goldwater-style Republican. End the IRS, small government Republican." Depending on the reaction you can go from there. Any "blue state" type that will walk away from that is unreachable.

jblosser
09-21-2007, 11:55 AM
These are people that put party over principle. They're "L" Libertarians, not "l" libertarians.

Ignore them. They don't understand what's at stake, and history has shown that they don't matter anyway. These are the types that are Libertarians because they want to be part of an exclusive club, not really affect change.

And they're confused about where the LP came from and what its goals are. They care about winning elections only and are willing to be pragmatic to do it. Ron scares them because they believe he can't win and are not willing to try when it means they likely lose ballot access (because their own candidate won't get enough of the vote to stay on next time).

Lew Rockwell took them to task really well here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lp-turkish-delight.html

mdh
09-21-2007, 12:04 PM
And they're confused about where the LP came from and what its goals are. They care about winning elections only and are willing to be pragmatic to do it. Ron scares them because they believe he can't win and are not willing to try when it means they likely lose ballot access (because their own candidate won't get enough of the vote to stay on next time).

Lew Rockwell took them to task really well here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lp-turkish-delight.html

Mr. Rockwell makes some incorrect assumptions, it seems, on how the whole thing went down. The platform vote was largely ignored by folks, but from what I understand, the people who made the changes had been plotting in secret, got together at the convention, and turned what was for decades merely a procedural step at each convention into the biggest hullabaloo the LP has seen since Rothbard ran off in the early 80's.

I still have trouble, personally, on condemning the whole thing as wrong and bad, or embracing it as a "coming of age" for the LP.

bygone
09-21-2007, 12:35 PM
MDH, unlike many I believe that its not to that point just yet. There is much to still be done and I get the impression that many are afraid of it.


Telling *our* oppressors to fuck off with one voice would lead to no governance, not one-voice governance.

Are you sure about that? Perhaps you could point me to an example of no governance... but I bet it would be the exception rather than the rule.

Are you sure they put us into groups? Could it not also be argued that we put ourselves into groups and that "they" take advantage? And, if "they" didn't take advantage of this weakness and discord, then wouldn't another "they" simply do the same?

It's too easy to blame "them". I think the reality is that we are "them" and we largely do it to ourselves. When you remove the personal responsibility from the picture it actually encourages more of this kind of thing.

It is much harder to actually live by these standards than to talk about them. Everyone can adopt the highest ideals and standards when they do not have to live up to them.

stevedasbach
09-21-2007, 01:01 PM
The Libertarian Party needs to ask themselves are they pro-liberty or are they pro-the Libertarian Party. The whole point of forming the Libertarian Party was to promote liberty since there was no other party actually doing that. Now there is a candidate running who has a chance who actually believes in liberty and there is no legitimate excuse not to support him. The Libertarians have become partisan. They have become a dinky version of the two big parties. Of course, there are so few Libertarians (myself included) that it might not really matter.

The LP as an organization is prohibited in its bylaws from endorsing candidates who are members of other parties. Just as Dr. Paul says that we have to follow the Constitution until such time as we amend it, the LP has to follow its bylaws.

This doesn't prohibit individual Libertarians from supporting Dr. Paul -- unscientific polls of LP members show Dr. Paul with overwhelming support.

In a few states, ballot access is determined by voter registration. In those states, Libertarians may be unwilling to jeopardize there ballot access by re-registering Republican, even temporarily.

SewrRatt
09-21-2007, 01:04 PM
These are people that put party over principle. They're "L" Libertarians, not "l" libertarians.

Ignore them. They don't understand what's at stake, and history has shown that they don't matter anyway. These are the types that are Libertarians because they want to be part of an exclusive club, not really affect change.

While that may be partly true, the difference is supposed to mean that big L Libertarians are minarchists and small l libertarians are anarchists.

mdh
09-21-2007, 01:12 PM
While that may be partly true, the difference is supposed to mean that big L Libertarians are minarchists and small l libertarians are anarchists.

Errr, say what now? Most people use big-L to denote a member of the LP, and small-l to denote someone who is libertarian-minded but not a part of the LP.

The LP has many minarchists, many anarchists, and many others among the ranks. :)

In the end, libertarianism, in my opinion at least, comes down to the non-aggression axiom at the core. Furthermore, as individualists, we can only make those choices for ourselves.

mdh
09-21-2007, 01:18 PM
The LP as an organization is prohibited in its bylaws from endorsing candidates who are members of other parties. Just as Dr. Paul says that we have to follow the Constitution until such time as we amend it, the LP has to follow its bylaws.

In a lot of ways, it seems like it'd be rather silly for the LP as an entity to offer some official proclamation of endorsement. It would marginalize LP candidates to whom many people will likely turn if Dr. Paul somehow fails to achieve the nomination from the GOP. That said, if Dr. Paul does win the GOP nomination, it may be worthwhile to consider other options. There are many who feel that way, I think.

On the other hand, the LP has a tremendous opportunity to fill the house and the senate in 2010 after Dr. Paul has won the white house. We all know he will. :)

ziggy_encaoua
09-21-2007, 02:27 PM
The LP has many minarchists, many anarchists, and many others among the ranks. :)

In the end, libertarianism, in my opinion at least, comes down to the non-aggression axiom at the core. Furthermore, as individualists, we can only make those choices for ourselves.

The Lp also has candidates standing next year in various state elections who have fallen for the whole Neocon bullshit about Iraqm, which goes completely against the non-aggression axiom.

mdh
09-21-2007, 02:39 PM
The Lp also has candidates standing next year in various state elections who have fallen for the whole Neocon bullshit about Iraqm, which goes completely against the non-aggression axiom.

Say what now? Like who? I'd be really interested to hear more about this, since I wasn't aware of any pro-war LP candidates at all.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-21-2007, 02:54 PM
I’ve recently found out though there are many with libertarian leanings that are refusing to support Ron because he’s Republican. Personally I think it’s really idiotic to judge somebody blindly upon a label but unfortunately people do & so it’s a battle to convince them that Ron Paul’s no stereotypical Republican. Its rather idiotic considering they usually agree with much of Ron Paul’s platform. I’d imagine this isn’t an uncommon problem?

He has no choice. He would be nowhere if he were with the LP.

bygone
09-21-2007, 02:57 PM
He has no choice. He would be nowhere if he were with the LP.

QFT look at '88

Arkris
09-21-2007, 05:16 PM
The more I think about it, the more it seems like the creation of the Libertarian Party is what allowed the NeoCons to take over the Republican Party. I like the idea of a type of a Libertarian PAC that endorses candidates, but when you exclude your members from being part of other parties you're kind of painting yourself in a corner.

I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party before I changed over to Republican to vote for Dr. Paul. I liked the idea of being part of a party that really represented me and my own opinions. What I failed to think of was the fact that the party is practically powerless. It's a snowballs chance in Hell that a Libertarian will win a major federal election. By taking all of the libertarian minded individuals out of the Republican Party, and sequestering them in another party where they can't do much of anything, you're basically giving the Republican Partyto statist wackos.

I like to think that this might all change soon. If Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, then I seriously think that the Republican Party could go the way of the Whigs. The Republican Party is alreaddy getting much less donations than the Dempcrats. Imagine what would happen if the Libertarian Party absorbs a good ammount of the dejected former Republicans, leaving only a skeleton crew of incredibly unpopular NeoCons in the Republican Party.

As I see it, if Ron Paul doesn't get the Nomination, then we have one of three choices:
1.) Give up. We tried our best, but we failed.

2.) Invest all of our time and effort into electing Ron Paul-esque candidates to public office as Republicans, to try to reform the Party.

3.) Invest all of our time and effort into the Libertarian Party, to surpass the Republicans. If we can successfully raise more money and gain more support for the LP then lobbyists and special interest groups, seeing a chance to get in on the ground floor, might rally to the LP. Hopefully, the Republican Party will eventually be bled dry, and once it stops kicking, it'll follow the way of the Whig. A bit fanciful, but I like it.

Sorry, I went off on a bit of a tangent there.

jblosser
09-21-2007, 05:20 PM
I think it's possible but I don't know if it would be the LP to do it. A lot of Ron's support is not from even small-l libertarians, it's from a new wave of Constitutionalists. The Constitution party is probably a better fit for them than the GOP but it has its own baggage. If anything had a chance it would probably be a new party.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-21-2007, 05:26 PM
I think it's possible but I don't know if it would be the LP to do it. A lot of Ron's support is not from even small-l libertarians, it's from a new wave of Constitutionalists. The Constitution party is probably a better fit for them than the GOP but it has its own baggage. If anything had a chance it would probably be a new party.

The CP is too socially conservative. That's the turn off, they give me a head ache.

jblosser
09-21-2007, 05:28 PM
Yes, hence "baggage".

I think to carry all of Ron's support across we'd need a party that is for the same things he's running on: Constitutional national government, no more, no less. Any more than that would carry only a subset of people.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-21-2007, 05:32 PM
Yes, hence "baggage".

I think to carry all of Ron's support across we'd need a party that is for the same things he's running on: Constitutional national government, no more, no less. Any more than that would carry only a subset of people.

I don't even know why the CP should be socally conservative lol. Why not just represent the supreme law of the land? They turn people off with their homophobia.

ButchHowdy
09-21-2007, 05:57 PM
Did anyone else get the http://republicanforaday.com/ from their meetup group?

I thought this was a brilliant way to help the non-republicans justify a temporary label for the long term benefit,

I finally found my voter card, I bought a pretty stamp, and this puppy's going back from whence it came to be stamped "REP" I will remove the finger from my throat shortly thereafter!

vanadium
09-21-2007, 06:13 PM
George Washington addressed the problem of political parties 200 years ago in his Farewell Address. He conceded, grudgingly, that it is "probably true" that, "within certain limits" political "parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty." But he added that party spirit was "not to be encouraged." He thought "there will always be enough of [it] for every salutary purpose." As there was "constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it."

He compared the competition of parties to inflammation: "A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

http://members.forbes.com/global/2006/0508/014.html

mdh
09-21-2007, 06:17 PM
The more I think about it, the more it seems like the creation of the Libertarian Party is what allowed the NeoCons to take over the Republican Party. I like the idea of a type of a Libertarian PAC that endorses candidates, but when you exclude your members from being part of other parties you're kind of painting yourself in a corner.

I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party before I changed over to Republican to vote for Dr. Paul. I liked the idea of being part of a party that really represented me and my own opinions. What I failed to think of was the fact that the party is practically powerless. It's a snowballs chance in Hell that a Libertarian will win a major federal election. By taking all of the libertarian minded individuals out of the Republican Party, and sequestering them in another party where they can't do much of anything, you're basically giving the Republican Partyto statist wackos.

I like to think that this might all change soon. If Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, then I seriously think that the Republican Party could go the way of the Whigs. The Republican Party is alreaddy getting much less donations than the Dempcrats. Imagine what would happen if the Libertarian Party absorbs a good ammount of the dejected former Republicans, leaving only a skeleton crew of incredibly unpopular NeoCons in the Republican Party.

As I see it, if Ron Paul doesn't get the Nomination, then we have one of three choices:
1.) Give up. We tried our best, but we failed.

2.) Invest all of our time and effort into electing Ron Paul-esque candidates to public office as Republicans, to try to reform the Party.

3.) Invest all of our time and effort into the Libertarian Party, to surpass the Republicans. If we can successfully raise more money and gain more support for the LP then lobbyists and special interest groups, seeing a chance to get in on the ground floor, might rally to the LP. Hopefully, the Republican Party will eventually be bled dry, and once it stops kicking, it'll follow the way of the Whig. A bit fanciful, but I like it.

Sorry, I went off on a bit of a tangent there.

I'm on board for #3. The GOP is, by and large, owned at the national level by special interests that Ron Paul fans do not like. ;) #1 should not be considered an option by anyone.

I'm sure you have heard criticisms of the Libertarian Party as an organization. But tell me if you can find a party with a better platform and better principles that comes even close in size to the LP. Then imagine how much good you can do as a part of it.
Admittedly, there are things within the LP that I don't agree with, but I'm working to change them. You can too.

And let's face it - we can't count on the Reps or the Dems to run good candidates for congress in 2010 to help Dr. Paul do his best once he's in the white house. :)


I think it's possible but I don't know if it would be the LP to do it. A lot of Ron's support is not from even small-l libertarians, it's from a new wave of Constitutionalists. The Constitution party is probably a better fit for them than the GOP but it has its own baggage. If anything had a chance it would probably be a new party.

I disagree here. It seems like the actual core of Dr. Paul's base tends to be libertarian folks. By and large, I'm not sure what the difference is between libertarianism and "new wave constitutionalism". It seems to just be another word for what we've called libertarianism for decades now.


The CP is too socially conservative. That's the turn off, they give me a head ache.

Well, there are certainly people who are "socially conservative" in the LP, as well. Really, the CP seems very similar to the LP except much much smaller. The only real difference is that the CP uses the word God a whole lot more on their official platform, etc, whereas the LP doesn't. There are plenty of Christian LP'ers, as well as people from a huge variety of religious and spiritual backgrounds in the LP... the CP tends to be more centered around a Christian base.

I'm an LP'er by affiliation/membership, but I'm very friendly with CP folks. Their candidates tend to appeal to me, as well. I just feel the LP is much bigger to start with comparatively, and has broader appeal, hence serving as a better instrument for us to run and elect liberty-minded candidates.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-21-2007, 06:19 PM
People want to legislate people's personal lives in the LP? FOOLS! That just about goes against everything the LP stands for!

mdh
09-21-2007, 06:22 PM
People want to legislate people's personal lives in the LP? FOOLS! That just about goes against everything the LP stands for!

Who said that? You can be socially conservative without wanting to use the government to enforce your values (or anyone elses') on others. I know some folks in the LP who are pretty much anarchists, but are very socially conservative individuals.

Dr. Paul is a life member of the LP, and he's very socially conservative.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-21-2007, 06:29 PM
Who said that? You can be socially conservative without wanting to use the government to enforce your values (or anyone elses') on others. I know some folks in the LP who are pretty much anarchists, but are very socially conservative individuals.

Dr. Paul is a life member of the LP, and he's very socially conservative.

I see a distinction here... don't say you're socially conservative, unless you want to legislate people's lives

mdh
09-21-2007, 06:31 PM
I see a distinction here... don't say you're socially conservative, unless you want to legislate people's lives

That's like saying don't call yourself a liberal unless you endorse socialism. Lots of my libertarian friends call themselves classical liberals. :)

JosephTheLibertarian
09-21-2007, 06:33 PM
That's like saying don't call yourself a liberal unless you endorse socialism. Lots of my libertarian friends call themselves classical liberals. :)

Well, that would be different. People only know what you tell them ;) liberalism isn't socialism btw

mdh
09-21-2007, 06:42 PM
liberalism isn't socialism btw

And social conservatism isn't authoritarianism btw. :p

JosephTheLibertarian
09-21-2007, 06:47 PM
And social conservatism isn't authoritarianism btw. :p

no.. its somewhere on the right, but it does connect with authoritarianism... Well, at least they don't want to legislate people's lives. I don't want to do cocaine, but I will oppose laws against it. That's just me... If I had a gf, I wouldn't want her to have an abortion, so am I pro life? I don't care what other people do. They can abort themselves for all I care.

Akus
09-21-2007, 07:48 PM
Once when I was on the streets campaigning someone asked me what he was running as and I said Ron Paul is trying to get the Republican nomination. When the guy heard that he closed up and said "Nope! No Thank you. I'm never voting Republican again." I told the guy that Ron Paul's political views are Libertarian, but the guy closed up totally and nothing I would say would've mattered.

I've only ran into that problem once. No big deal.

Actually, if I didn't know Ron Paul and his good standing with Libertarians, I would say the very same thing. RP is the only reason why I even care who's running in the big two.

zahirakids
09-21-2007, 08:04 PM
The Libertarian Party needs to ask themselves are they pro-liberty or are they pro-the Libertarian Party. The whole point of forming the Libertarian Party was to promote liberty since there was no other party actually doing that. Now there is a candidate running who has a chance who actually believes in liberty and there is no legitimate excuse not to support him. The Libertarians have become partisan. They have become a dinky version of the two big parties. Of course, there are so few Libertarians (myself included) that it might not really matter.

Actually the latest LP polls show that over 80% of Libertarian Party members are suporting Paul.

mdh
09-22-2007, 11:38 AM
Actually the latest LP polls show that over 80% of Libertarian Party members are suporting Paul.

I've seen 90%.

jblosser
09-25-2007, 10:11 AM
I disagree here. It seems like the actual core of Dr. Paul's base tends to be libertarian folks. By and large, I'm not sure what the difference is between libertarianism and "new wave constitutionalism". It seems to just be another word for what we've called libertarianism for decades now.

The core is, but the difference between Ron's currently successful campaign vs. all the also-rans the LP has done historically is the people outside the core. The difference between the LP platform and a Constitutionalist platform (not CP platform) is that the latter doesn't even really talk about what individual states should do and leaves plenty of room for them not being minarchists themselves.

i.e., a person who wants a big local government but a federalized national government is not likely to call themselves [lL]ibertarian, but is ok supporting national candidates like Ron Paul. I don't think any existing party really fits the model of "government that follows the relevant laws on its scope, whether they are big or small", but that's essentially what Ron is actually promising.