PDA

View Full Version : With Ron Paul leaving the picture soon we have to ask: what is this movement about?




Murray N Rothbard
07-07-2012, 10:30 PM
"Ron Paul" to some people is just a guy who happens to believe the same things they do. But for many, I suspect, he is the reason they believe the things they do. That can be both good and bad. Good, for introducing ideas to people who otherwise would have remained in ignorance. Bad, because, what happens when he's gone?

I fear this movement will disintegrate or fundamentally change for the worse without a mainstream political figure who has hardcore libertarian beliefs and refuses to compromise.

Now, this probably applies to few on this forum, but how many of the so-called "Paulbots" actually researched where his ideas come from, and read the books that he read 50 years ago? Proportionally, more than Mitt Romney and Obama, I'm sure, but they don't really believe in anything anyway, and for this movement ideas matter. In fact they're the essential feature. No ideas, no movement, in my opinion at least. But Ron never really explained them publicly except on a superficial level and I wonder how well everyone would stay on point as a group without him.

I don't see anyone ready to take his place either. Gary Johnson, or Rand? As much as I like them, they're not Ron Paul. They are Reagan to Paul's Goldwater (and even Goldwater was no Ron Paul). The problem is a bad replacement can cause more harm than no replacement at all. Reagan shows how a phony can co-opt a message and philosophically contaminate a movement, setting it back decades. He gave us Bush 41, who gave us Bush 43.

This is harsh but I have to say it: Ron failed to pass on his ideals to his own son, could the same happen to his movement?

BuddyRey
07-07-2012, 10:42 PM
I couldn't have said it better myself.

We've got to stay vigilant against corrupting influences coming from the major party machine. Now that they know we're a viable and potent ideological force (especially for recruiting young people), they will stop at nothing to pretend to welcome us into their "big tent". But once inside the tent, we'll be knocked out, bound in electrical tape, and have our "libertarian ID" badges stolen...metaphorically speaking, of course.

Best thing we can do is continue to run candidates with *maximum* integrity and credibility. If you put out the best possible candidates and ideas, the people always gravitate to them ("if you build it, they will come!"), but if we run a Bob Barr, a Wayne Allyn Root, or even a Rand Paul, it remains to be seen whether the movement will continue growing by the leaps and bounds it has under Ron Paul's guidance. The Libertarian Party learned this the hard way; they thought if they went "mainstream" and nominated Bob Barr, they'd have a chance at winning. But Barr netted them even less vote totals than they got under radical Harry Browne eight years earlier.

Keep putting the real deal out there...people will pay attention. Ron Paul was proof.

PS....Tom Woods 2016!

BuddyRey
07-07-2012, 10:42 PM
Sorry, duplicate post.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-07-2012, 11:32 PM
"Ron Paul" to some people is just a guy who happens to believe the same things they do. But for many, I suspect, he is the reason they believe the things they do. That can be both good and bad. Good, for introducing ideas to people who otherwise would have remained in ignorance. Bad, because, what happens when he's gone?

I fear this movement will disintegrate or fundamentally change for the worse without a mainstream political figure who has hardcore libertarian beliefs and refuses to compromise.

Now, this probably applies to few on this forum, but how many of the so-called "Paulbots" actually researched where his ideas come from, and read the books that he read 50 years ago? Proportionally, more than Mitt Romney and Obama, I'm sure, but they don't really believe in anything anyway, and for this movement ideas matter. In fact they're the essential feature. No ideas, no movement, in my opinion at least. But Ron never really explained them publicly except on a superficial level and I wonder how well everyone would stay on point as a group without him.

I don't see anyone ready to take his place either. Gary Johnson, or Rand? As much as I like them, they're not Ron Paul. They are Reagan to Paul's Goldwater (and even Goldwater was no Ron Paul). The problem is a bad replacement can cause more harm than no replacement at all. Reagan shows how a phony can co-opt a message and philosophically contaminate a movement, setting it back decades. He gave us Bush 41, who gave us Bush 43.

This is harsh but I have to say it: Ron failed to pass on his ideals to his own son, could the same happen to his movement?

Movement?
There is just one true American Movement. The envisioning and empowering gained by this event works wholly outside of the electoral process. During this time, Americans regain their souls by returning to revere our Founding Fathers, and to the returning to understand the natural law they declared in The Declaration of Independence.
All other movements are false movements.

muzzled dogg
07-07-2012, 11:54 PM
Move to new Hampshire, make a difference, and never worry about federal politics ever again

BuddyRey
07-08-2012, 12:07 AM
Movement?
There is just one true American Movement. The envisioning and empowering gained by this event works wholly outside of the electoral process. During this time, Americans regain their souls by returning to revere our Founding Fathers, and to the returning to understand the natural law they declared in The Declaration of Independence.
All other movements are false movements.

If waving incense at the Founders and professing love for the Declaration of Independence was enough to save this country, the Tea Party would have genuflected us into a Utopia...not to mention movement after movement before them who tried the exact same approach.

Modern day public-schooled and fluoride-addled Americans can't even read those founding documents, much less understand them.

Nirvikalpa
07-08-2012, 10:14 AM
Don't you have your own activist forum, Esoteric? Ask your members.

LibertyEagle
07-08-2012, 10:17 AM
I don't see anyone ready to take his place either. Gary Johnson, or Rand? As much as I like them, they're not Ron Paul. They are Reagan to Paul's Goldwater (and even Goldwater was no Ron Paul). The problem is a bad replacement can cause more harm than no replacement at all. Reagan shows how a phony can co-opt a message and philosophically contaminate a movement, setting it back decades. He gave us Bush 41, who gave us Bush 43.
Rand is not Reagan. He has shown this, thus far, by action not just rhetoric.


This is harsh but I have to say it: Ron failed to pass on his ideals to his own son, could the same happen to his movement?
Yeah, he did. He's not a carbon copy, but neither was Rothbard a carbon copy of Mises.

LibertyEagle
07-08-2012, 10:18 AM
Don't you have your own activist forum, Esoteric? Ask your members.

Ha ha. PWNED!!! :D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-08-2012, 11:20 AM
If waving incense at the Founders and professing love for the Declaration of Independence was enough to save this country, the Tea Party would have genuflected us into a Utopia...not to mention movement after movement before them who tried the exact same approach.

Modern day public-schooled and fluoride-addled Americans can't even read those founding documents, much less understand them.

"founding?" I'm speaking to an irreverent. You have eaten up the press to the point that you don't even know who to formalize in the higher case.
Once again, there is just one American Movement and always has been. If you aren't in the American Movement, you are in a false countermovement.

newbitech
07-08-2012, 11:42 AM
I am going to say it's pretty much every man for himself. As it should be. It is possible that some magnetic personality or some irresistible idea or cause materializes after Ron Paul exits the stage to once again unite the free man, but it is more likely that the next catalyst for movement as it were is something negative.

Ron Paul gained his following not so much because of his message, but because of the exposure of his message to the increasing number of individuals looking for relief from an oppressive authority.

Now that his message has spread, I believe it will continue to spread and many of us individuals will simply bide our time waiting to capitalize on the information and knowledge the man and his ideas have impressed upon us.

That being said, I believe this movement will be about picking up the pieces from a failed government that has abandoned its only role of protecting individual liberty. Once that failed government is out of the way, sadly due to self inflicted calamities that will hurt us all, then the individual with Ron Paul's ideas will become that magnetic personality with irresistible ideas and a common cause that others seeking relief from the suffocation of the effects of the disaster will rally around.

Brian4Liberty
07-08-2012, 11:43 AM
...
I fear this movement will disintegrate or fundamentally change for the worse without a mainstream political figure who has hardcore libertarian beliefs and refuses to compromise.
...


We're working on it. Take your pick.

Our best bets (this election cycle):
Thomas Massie (http://www.thomasmassie.com/) (R) KY-4 - (purity: ★★★★★)
Justin Amash (http://amashforcongress.com/) (R-incumbent) MI-3 - (purity: ★★★★★)
Kerry Bentivolio (http://www.bentivolioforcongress.com/) (R) MI-11 - (purity: ★★★★★)
Art Robinson (http://www.artforcongress.com) (R) OR-4 - (purity: ★★★★★)
Steve Stockman (http://congressmanstevestockman.com/) (R) TX-36 - (purity: ★★★★★)
Kurt Bills (http://kurtbills.com/) (R) US Senate - (purity: ★★★★★)

sailingaway
07-08-2012, 11:54 AM
We're working on it. Take your pick.

Our best bets (this election cycle):
Thomas Massie (http://www.thomasmassie.com/) (R) KY-4 - (purity: ★★★★★)
Justin Amash (http://amashforcongress.com/) (R-incumbent) MI-3 - (purity: ★★★★★)
Kerry Bentivolio (http://www.bentivolioforcongress.com/) (R) MI-11 - (purity: ★★★★★)
Art Robinson (http://www.artforcongress.com) (R) OR-4 - (purity: ★★★★★)
Steve Stockman (http://congressmanstevestockman.com/) (R) TX-36 - (purity: ★★★★★)
Kurt Bills (http://kurtbills.com/) (R) US Senate - (purity: ★★★★★)

last I saw your matrix of good candidates didn't even INCLUDE civil liberties. I judge each candidate on their own, but when they have Ron Paul available to support and don't, it does impact my view.

Dr.3D
07-08-2012, 12:02 PM
Emm... I don't see Ron Paul leaving the picture anytime soon.

sailingaway
07-08-2012, 12:04 PM
Emm... I don't see Ron Paul leaving the picture anytime soon.

this. What do you think he built C4L for? at least I assume he will head it up.

Indy Vidual
07-08-2012, 12:04 PM
Teach people the NAP and you can be a leader.


...
This is harsh but I have to say it...

This is harsh but I have to say it:
At least our new leader(s) will not be tainted by questionable newsletters published with their own name at the top.
Thank God for that if you have one.

Brian4Liberty
07-08-2012, 01:06 PM
last I saw your matrix of good candidates didn't even INCLUDE civil liberties. I judge each candidate on their own, but when they have Ron Paul available to support and don't, it does impact my view.

Are there specific concerns with any candidate on the short list? Input is more than welcome!

AuH20
07-08-2012, 01:08 PM
The movement is better than ever. Bigger and better things await.

Brian4Liberty
07-08-2012, 01:10 PM
...I judge each candidate on their own, but when they have Ron Paul available to support and don't, it does impact my view.

Not sure what you mean? Are you talking abut GJ?

ronpaulhawaii
07-08-2012, 01:18 PM
The premise is flawed.


Emm... I don't see Ron Paul leaving the picture anytime soon.

Exactly. In fact I see RP shining even brighter over the next few years. He wont be saddled as much by congressional considerations, and will be doing what he loves; educating and inspiring people towards liberty.

Brian4Liberty
07-08-2012, 01:28 PM
Emm... I don't see Ron Paul leaving the picture anytime soon.


this. What do you think he built C4L for? at least I assume he will head it up.


The premise is flawed.

Exactly. In fact I see RP shining even brighter over the next few years. He wont be saddled as much by congressional considerations, and will be doing what he loves; educating and inspiring people towards liberty.

Agree. I would expect Ron to keep up the C4L activities and do speeches/appearances/etc.

July
07-08-2012, 01:44 PM
Now, this probably applies to few on this forum, but how many of the so-called "Paulbots" actually researched where his ideas come from, and read the books that he read 50 years ago? Proportionally, more than Mitt Romney and Obama, I'm sure, but they don't really believe in anything anyway, and for this movement ideas matter.

I have, and am currently continuing to do so. Yeah, I imagine there are some supporters who were just on the bandwagon. I'm not sure exactly how many or what percentage. That's probably unavoidable, though, in any movement. However, it's interesting to see how the enthusiasm has held up from 2008 to 2012... I would have expected a big drop in interest, with or without Ron still in the picture, since fads tends to be fickle like that... so that does suggest to me that he has managed to attract a demographic with a higher percentage of people who are interested in ideas and political philosophy. The fact that supporters would often have to go the extra mile to dig online for news and information on Ron, probably helped to attract that demographic.


In fact they're the essential feature. No ideas, no movement, in my opinion at least. But Ron never really explained them publicly except on a superficial level and I wonder how well everyone would stay on point as a group without him.

I think he has done a good job presenting and introducing the ideas. Ron was certainly a sort of "gateway" for me. Sadly, it has still not been enough to truly crack the mainstream, but I think that long after Ron has left the political scene, his books, speeches, etc, are going to continue to serve that role as an introduction for people.


I don't see anyone ready to take his place either. Gary Johnson, or Rand?

Well, on the political stage, it remains to be seen. But, maybe this is just because Ron Paul himself hasn't completely left the picture yet. Remains to be seen what he plans to do after he retires from office, and to what degree he will remain an intellectual presence. He is leaving political office, but politics isn't all there is. He might continue to write, etc.


This is harsh but I have to say it: Ron failed to pass on his ideals to his own son, could the same happen to his movement?

Whenever I hear people say that kind of thing, I always wonder if they have children of their own. Or what their own parents were like. You can't just carbon copy and transfer all of your own ideals to your children like that--and, actually, I would seriously question Rand and how genuine his ideals were, if he really did claim to be an exact copy of his father. The better question is whether Ron was able to impart critical thinking and appreciation for individualism. I think that, more than anything, will determine whether Rand will succumb to group think and peer pressure in Washington, or whether he'll be afraid to stand up when it counts. And same goes for others in the movement.

Feeding the Abscess
07-08-2012, 03:00 PM
Whatever we do, we shouldn't let this happen (yet) again:


[the Old Right] set the tone, since individualist and libertarian rhetoric provided the only general concepts with which New Deal measures could be opposed. The result, however, was that hack Republican politicians found themselves mouthing libertarian and antistatist slogans that they did not really believe — a condition that set the stage for a later "moderation" and abandonment of their seemingly cherished principles.


the Libertarians, especially in their sense of where they stood in the ideological spectrum, fused with the older conservatives who were forced to adopt libertarian phraseology (but with no real libertarian content) in opposing a Roosevelt Administration that had become too collectivistic for them, either in content or in rhetoric. World War II reinforced and cemented this alliance; for, in contrast to all the previous American wars of the century, the pro-peace and "isolationist" forces were all identified, by their enemies and subsequently by themselves, as men of the "Right." By the end of World War II, it was second nature for libertarians to consider themselves at an "extreme right-wing" pole with the conservatives immediately to the left of them; and hence the great error of the spectrum that persists to this day. In particular, the modern libertarians forgot or never realized that opposition to war and militarism had always been a "left-wing" tradition which had included libertarians; and hence when the historical aberration of the New Deal period corrected itself and the "Right-wing" was once again the great partisan of total war, the Libertarians were unprepared to understand what was happening and tailed along in the wake of their supposed conservative "allies." The liberals had completely lost their old ideological markings and guidelines.

Lining up behind guys like DeMint, Cruz, etc is letting it happen again. We need to stress principles and ideas, not candidates. If a candidate isn't openly speaking against the wars and the fed, he's not worthy of the liberty movement's support. Let conservatives or base Republicans get those guys elected. You can't oppose big government without opposing the two drivers of government's growth - the Fed, and war. We also shouldn't support candidates who say we need to broaden the tax base. We're going to say we hold a kinship with conservatives on taxes and economics, and we're going to let them get away with saying everybody needs to pay taxes? Good grief.


Whenever I hear people say that kind of thing, I always wonder if they have children of their own. Or what their own parents were like. You can't just carbon copy and transfer all of your own ideals to your children like that--and, actually, I would seriously question Rand and how genuine his ideals were, if he really did claim to be an exact copy of his father. The better question is whether Ron was able to impart critical thinking and appreciation for individualism. I think that, more than anything, will determine whether Rand will succumb to group think and peer pressure in Washington, or whether he'll be afraid to stand up when it counts. And same goes for others in the movement.

For what it's worth, his campaign - including peripheral guys like Jack Hunter - were saying that Rand was exactly like his father ideologically, and that's what drove many people to donate and volunteer for him - they thought they were getting Ron 2.0.

TheTexan
07-08-2012, 03:48 PM
Whatever we do, we shouldn't let this happen (yet) again:

Lining up behind guys like DeMint, Cruz, etc is letting it happen again. We need to stress principles and ideas, not candidates. If a candidate isn't openly speaking against the wars and the fed, he's not worthy of the liberty movement's support. Let conservatives or base Republicans get those guys elected. You can't oppose big government without opposing the two drivers of government's growth - the Fed, and war. We also shouldn't support candidates who say we need to broaden the tax base. We're going to say we hold a kinship with conservatives on taxes and economics, and we're going to let them get away with saying everybody needs to pay taxes? Good grief.

Indeed. It is happening again. Those who cannot see this are either intentionally sabotaging the movement or are willfully ignorant, and both amount to the same thing. If this movement is to survive, we have to recognize that there are those in this movement who share our rhetoric, but do not share our beliefs. They can convincingly pretend to be a friend and ally of liberty, but as long as they support compromised candidates, they are not, and are in fact an enemy of the movement, for the reasons you mentioned.

I have tried to be tolerant of these people but I'm out of patience with their persistence to repeat the failures of history. Divisive or not, I will no longer treat them as a useless "friend", but rather an enemy actively sabotaging our prospects for freedom.

Indy Vidual
07-09-2012, 01:03 AM
...saying that Rand was exactly like his father ideologically, and that's what drove many people to donate and volunteer for him - they thought they were getting Ron 2.0.

Rand's stance against (portions of) the Civil Rights Act was pretty brave, for example.
His career is still just getting started, and Rand Paul has a few positive surprises left for us.

http://i.imgur.com/8Ox9S.jpg

Indy Vidual
07-09-2012, 01:11 AM
...We need to stress principles and ideas, not candidates....

While taking over/taking back the Rep. party, LP or both?

LP = Easier to take back without any compromise, but you end up w/ ~500,000 votes every 4 years.
Rep party = Give Rand a(nother) chance, since he is still the best we have?

Joey Fuller
07-09-2012, 01:40 AM
It was fun while it lasted...

Defining Obscene
07-09-2012, 01:47 AM
This movement should be about opposing tyranny around the world, not just our own but the ones we sponsor. The biggest objection his own party had about him was his foreign policy perspective, because it was a big dose of truth that left a sour taste in jingoist's mouths. We can't afford to wait for elections to come around every few years only to be short-changed every single time by moneyed elites and their media megaphones. Defending the poor and respecting the right to self-determination should be our highest ideal because it gains us the most allies domestically and abroad, and it doesn't require a complex economic theory (THEORY) to explain. Its the golden rule. While I respect Ron Paul's ideas on free markets, free markets mean nothing if we're all dead. The alternative to our farce of a democracy when it comes to restraining our government's power is to empower others around the world to resist imperialism, government and private (which are the same). Ron Paul spoke for a lot of people who didn't have a voice every time he endorsed non-aggression and minding our own business, and those people are suffering very real consequences and they shouldn't just be the face of our movement but they should be a reminder that power & empire have no loyalty and in only a generation, the tables could turn if heartless men like Kissinger want them to.


The problem I see so often is that people are either looking for a golden candidate to support, or they are settling for some republican hack who they have a couple agreements with but won't ever make a difference. This is a complete exercise in futility. Ron Paul had no illusions about winning, he was here to spread ideas. No emperor was ever chosen to restrain the power of Rome. The senators themselves weren't elected to dilute the power of the Roman empire. It was "the barbarians" who sacked Rome, the same people we are told to believe are barbarians today, those poor turd farmers in backwards provinces who need us to instill them with our noble Roman virtues. The subjects of the empire were the ones who restrained the power, not electoral colleges.

LibertyEagle
07-09-2012, 02:44 AM
It was fun while it lasted...

Are you quitting or something?

Feeding the Abscess
07-09-2012, 04:00 AM
Rand's stance against (portions of) the Civil Rights Act was pretty brave, for example.
His career is still just getting started, and Rand Paul has a few positive surprises left for us.

And then he walked it back the next day.

In any event, ran across this article. Murray had a knack for not mincing words

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard90.html

July
07-09-2012, 06:18 AM
For what it's worth, his campaign - including peripheral guys like Jack Hunter - were saying that Rand was exactly like his father ideologically, and that's what drove many people to donate and volunteer for him - they thought they were getting Ron 2.0.

Maybe, but some of his campaign rhetoric was already different, even back then. Regardless, if two people say they share the same philosophy, they are still different people. Jack Hunter still says that. Though, he qualifies it by making a distinction between personal philosophy and political style.