This movement is at a significant crossroads

[CTRattlesnake]

Like many of you, I was happy Romney lost and equally as upset that we have to deal with Mr NDAA for another 4 years. It got me thinking though, about the future of this movement and the country. Ultimately, the liberty lovers in this country need to make a choice. Do we try to incorporate our ideas and values into an existing party (most like the republicans) or do we forge our own path for a viable third party.

Now, neither option is particularly appealing, but we cant continue down the road of supporting a guy in the GOP primary and then support a third party candidate in the general election. It has to be one or other, or we will lose.

Now, I am more inclined to go down the third party road. The GOP is not going to budge, and even if we get a candidate to have some success, its ultimately not going to wind up in a nomination. Say what you want about Rand, but there are still a lot of problems with him IMO.

We are now at a time in our political history where more people identify as independents as ever before. The country cannot continue to be boxed into a two party system, and if given the proper exposure, a libertarian candidate could break out onto the national scene.

This requires more analysis, money, and time. But right now, this movement needs to pick itself up and figure out where the hell where going because if we are not united, we are going to fail.



CT

[acptulsa]

Actually, we need to keep doing both for now. The GOP is the better option, if we can pull it off. But the Republicans have a decision to make, too--do they continue to listen to Fox and get led into irrelevance and oblivion, or do they listen to us?

If they insist on oblivion, then the LP can replace them. If they decide to be relevant, we need to be there.

It isn't entirely our crossroads, or our decision.

[Mahkato]

GOP is in shambles. Scrape it back together and rebuild it without the old guard mucking things up.

[Odin]

I'll suggest a third alternative: Emerging second party.

Maybe we're at the point in history that we can replace the Republican party with something new. Idk it's a long shot but could work.

[sailingaway]

I think we need to change the recently passed rules at the GOP and need to continue to make inroads. but they are so corrupt, it is so accepted, and they HAVE passed rules making real participation so difficult, I think we need to keep all options open.

[Endthefednow]

yup, it is good to keep all the options open :)

[twomp]

IMO we are not the DNC or the RNC, we are not a pack of zombies roaming around together. SOME of us will want to work within the GOP, SOME of us will want to go 3rd party. Heck, some of us will want to support some "Ron Paul Democrats." We are INDIVIDUALS and that is what will differentiate us from any other political block. Ron Paul's IDEAS is what makes him popular to us.

So to answer your question, NO, none of us will just "fall in line" and go one single route. But WE ALL will be spreading Dr. Paul's ideas and that is how we will win. It's a slow process because we are against the world's greatest propaganda machine but it will still happen. I am very optimistic about our little rEVOLution and I have no doubt we will continue to grow. So instead of saying Rand Paul 2016 or Amash 2016, I'm going to go with LIBERTY 2016! And I will support ANYONE that supports LIBERTY.

[SonofThunder]

A lot of people are saying we can win through GOP precinct reorganization, state by state, county by county, precinct by precinct.

I don't see enough interest left over to actually do this.

I think the revolution is about to be dead.

[CTRattlesnake]

A lot of people are saying we can win through GOP precinct reorganization, state by state, county by county, precinct by precinct.

I don't see enough interest left over to actually do this.

I think the takeover of the GOP is about to be dead.

Fixed.....i think the GOP has committed themselves to neo-con ideals and dont give a damn about what anyone says. We have made some inroads in congress with Amash, etc, but how much further can we go?

Imagine if the Ron Paul republicans in congress switched to libertarians, what a shot in the arm that would give the LP.

[Elwar]

Some day we may even get as big as the Libertarian Party and achieve 1%!

[ronpaulfollower999]

Stay in the GOP, but vote for 3rd party candidates when the other guy is not a liberty candidate.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Some day we may even get as big as the Libertarian Party and achieve 1%!
The LP is such a joke.

[Ronulus]

The only way for us to get any media coverage in the recent future is to either have that R or D next to the name. Even if we put our all into a 3rd party, the masses will still vote straightline republican or democrat.

I personally would like to have another party called the Sons of Liberty. You can't run on the ticket unless you adhere to the 'planks'. No rhino's allowed.

[dinosaur]

Waking people up is the name of the game IMO. We need enough congressmen to provide a foil against the RINOs, to show the base what a real liberty loving congressmen act and vote like. If we can do this, the RINOs expose themselves. The 2014 races are key. If we can get enough liberty candidates in to make the base question why their talking head leaders, and their supposedly conservative channel, oppose the wonderful things that they are trying to do we might just become leaders. RINOs also expose themselves as they are forced to fight us within the R party. We have already forced them to tip their hand a little, but hopefully that is just the beginning. We move forward advancing principles and not just the man, they can't attack the principles the way they attacked Dr. Paul. I like keeping the third party option open just in case something happens that wakes the masses up, but that is just a just-in-case scenario. They don't need a new play book to defeat us as third party candidates the way things are; they just use the same old successful tactics and feel no pressure.

[jllundqu]

I say hand over the reins of power completely to the liberal socialists. They can destroy the entire country then we can get back to the business of rebuilding it. This gridlock sh*t is just stalling the inevitable.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

FYI - the best way to create a third party is a significant caucus in an existing party.

As it becomes more powerful, non members have to join to network with what it is going on. When it gets strong enough, the existing party either has to start sharing power, or it splits to form a new party.

Therefore, either goal at this point is in the same direction under this - probably most practical - plan.

[belian78]

I say hand over the reins of power completely to the liberal socialists. They can destroy the entire country then we can get back to the business of rebuilding it. This gridlock sh*t is just stalling the inevitable.
Agreed. Let it all implode, and then rebuild from the ground up. And before anyone chastises me, yes I know what that entails in it's entirety, but IMO it's the only way you get rid of all the junk laws/legislation/mandates/statist mindset/ect.. and start fresh.

[Boss]

Based on the way you (OP) have framed your question, the answer is inconsequential. Republicans don't perceive us as forming enough of a voting bloc to be included, and we certainly don't have the numbers for a formidable third party. As far as playing within the rules of the American democratic system goes, we don't stand a chance.

The solution to the real problem lies within the ascendance of a politically gifted revolutionary leader. Ron Paul possesses all the traits in abundance (except, arguably, for the most important one in effecting significant short term change: behind-the-scenes politicking that leads to meaningful political sway.)

So my answer is that our movement needs an extremely effective infiltrator into the Republican party. We won't win through numbers, we win through just one person who is better at the game of politics than the current Republicans are.

[CTRattlesnake]

Based on the way you (OP) have framed your question, the answer is inconsequential. Republicans don't perceive us as forming enough of a voting bloc to be included, and we certainly don't have the numbers for a formidable third party. As far as playing within the rules of the American democratic system goes, we don't stand a chance.

The solution to the real problem lies within the ascendance of a politically gifted revolutionary leader. Ron Paul possesses all the traits in abundance (except, arguably, for the most important one in effecting significant short term change: behind-the-scenes politicking that leads to meaningful political sway.)

So my answer is that our movement needs an extremely effective infiltrator into the Republican party. We won't win through numbers, we win through just one person who is better at the game of politics than the current Republicans are.

neither option in the poll is particularly inviting, but its what we have at the moment. I would love a truly motivational and inspirational figure that could bring over new people to our side now that Ron Paul has retired...but I dont see anyone at the moment.

We need an Obama like charismatic figure to stand up and get this thing going. As previous posters alluded too, we need to build enough power and momentum before we can really attempt to take over the republicans or create an effective third party

[parocks]

Stay in the GOP, but vote for 3rd party candidates when the other guy is not a liberty candidate.

That's basically it

[CTRattlesnake]

As I just posted, I feel that at this point, the movement is neither big enough nor powerful enough to do either of the things listed in the polls. We need to gather a larger group of congressman, senators, and other political figures and ultimately make our decision if we tell the GOP to get their **** together, or if we bail.

I'm not sure what the number might be, but it certainly has to improve from what we have now.

[Todd]

what about both. GOP definately needs an overhaul. And i would also like to see more choices.

[dinosaur]

neither option in the poll is particularly inviting, but its what we have at the moment. I would love a truly motivational and inspirational figure that could bring over new people to our side now that Ron Paul has retired...but I dont see anyone at the moment.

We need an Obama like charismatic figure to stand up and get this thing going. As previous posters alluded too, we need to build enough power and momentum before we can really attempt to take over the republicans or create an effective third party

What about a coalition of liberty Senate and House members? What if we got enough of them elected in 2014 to join Amash, Rand, etc. and become that voice, that leader?

[CTRattlesnake]

What about a coalition of liberty Senate and House members? What if we got enough of them elected in 2014 to join Amash, Rand, etc. and become that voice, that leader?

That would certainly help, and obviously the more we have the more likely someone will step up to the plate. The question then becomes where is the breaking point, where is the point that the GOP cant ignore us anymore, and if they do, us threatening to leave will be a legitimate threat.

[Boss]

In my opinion, there has not been a politician mentioned on this board who could do half the job that Ron has already done. Ron's role as an inspirational figure and as an educator cause me to be optimistic that somewhere out there a great leader is taking shape right now. We haven't seen them yet. More importantly, we will know them immediately because we won't doubt them for a second when we do see them. If they are to possess the necessary qualities, they will take the lead of their own volition and they certainly won't need us, we will need them.

[tsetsefly]

A lot of people are saying we can win through GOP precinct reorganization, state by state, county by county, precinct by precinct.

I don't see enough interest left over to actually do this.

I think the revolution is about to be dead.

How will it be dead with a bunch of new ron paul republicans who just won seats in congress?

The movement is just starting we have to keep electing liberty minded candidates into office.

Some people may not like Rand for 2016 but he is much better than the alternatives...

[The Dude]

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are corrupt vessels. They are tainted and will never be repaired, the party establishment and cronyism is ingrained in its very existence.

[Pauls' Revere]

Im done with the two party Plutocracy.

[Uriah]

My only question: What emerging 3rd party?

[Indy Vidual]

yup, it is good to keep all the options open :)

We made some great progress, and there is much more to life than politics.

[Feeding the Abscess]

A lot of people are saying we can win through GOP precinct reorganization, state by state, county by county, precinct by precinct.

I don't see enough interest left over to actually do this.

I think the revolution is about to be dead.

It's going to be finished off when Rand calls for keeping 75+ military bases open around the world.

[mport1]

How about we focus on things outside of politics? We need to use our time and resources much more effectively going forward.

[scottditzen]

Get liberty candidates elected in BOTH major parties.

America: fixed.

[Mini-Me]

It's going to be finished off when Rand calls for keeping 75+ military bases open around the world.

Half-serious question: Have you ever made an optimistic or non-judgmental post? Just because you prefer a more "all or nothing" approach does not mean that quickly closing down 90% of bases and leaving the rest for another debate would somehow be the end of this movement...if that were even what Rand would propose. Is it? I don't know, and as far as I'm concerned, it sounds like you're just bringing up Rand out of the blue for the sole sake of bashing him with melodramatic pronouncements.

Yes, I'm familiar with Ron Paul's quote in your signature, and he's correct that the state has an intense hunger and tendency to steadily grow, but he didn't exactly rigorously back up his assertion that liberty "cannot" be regained incrementally. This mentality is extremely popular among hardcore libertarians, yet it's little more than unsubstantiated dogma, because showing the tendency of government to grow in the absence of an organized effort to scale it down to zero does not prove the impossibility of such an organized effort to work. (No, the establishment Republican Party's failure does not even remotely count, because they have no earnest libertarian or limited government ideology whatsoever.) This whole attitude is based not on logic or reason but on an emotional revulsion to the idea of incrementalism...even huge "leaps and bounds" incrementalism.

Make no mistake: I'm no advocate of "baby steps," and I prefer Ron's approach to Rand's, but I'm not going to go out of my way to crap all over someone if they [might] want to knock out the easy spending/bases/etc. first to get a foothold, either...IF that's even what Rand would propose. Moreover, I'm certainly not going to bash someone based on a mere guess of what he'd propose. Sheesh.

[Barrex]

Creating new significant party is nearly impossible in Europe.... In US it is even harder... and in Europe we dont have only 2 significant parties.

Be realistic. 3rd party got 0.1% chance.

[Bastiat's The Law]

How about we focus on things outside of politics? We need to use our time and resources much more effectively going forward.
If you want to go the Zeitgeist route go do it.

[MelissaCato]

Existing party - it's our party not theirs. :D

[Bastiat's The Law]

Creating new significant party is nearly impossible in Europe.... In US it is even harder... and in Europe we dont have only 2 significant parties.

Be realistic. 3rd party got 0.1% chance.
That makes it sound more possible than it is. You can change voter psychology that has been ingrained in American society for centuries. Not in three lifetimes could you do this. Libertarians need to drop the pie-in-the-sky stuff and start living in reality.

[cajuncocoa]

Get liberty candidates elected in BOTH major parties.

America: fixed.Dems don't even give lip-service to liberty issues. At least the GOP pretends to want a free market and less government.

[Mini-Me]

Back to the subject of the thread: Third party advocates seem to focus almost exclusively on miraculously winning the Presidency if "just enough" people vote third party, either suddenly or after a gradual increase of credibility with each election. The results of Ross Perot's 1992 effort demonstrated that both scenarios are incredibly difficult to pull off: He was a billionaire with a mainstream ideology telling Americans exactly what they wanted to hear at a less politically polarized time, and he still didn't produce a miracle. Moreover, instead of third party credibility growing from year to year after that, it quickly tapered off again (and laws have since been instituted making it even more difficult to break in). On top of that, third parties are deeply fragmented, which further destroys their effectiveness; you can't even get the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party to cooperate unless Ron Paul is running for the Republican ticket. Even after recognizing the platform that would bring them together, they STILL don't have the sense or modesty to merge under it. ;)

However, those arguments sidestep the larger issue: Even if Perot had won in 1992, and even if he were actually Ron Paul wearing a mask, winning the Presidency is only enough to buy time. It is not enough for lasting political change, because for that, we need Congress as well. To take Congress, we need an enormous national infrastructure for simultaneously funding hundreds of races at once.

Simply destabilizing the two-party system with a third party Presidential win is not enough to achieve this:
After a sudden breakthrough, there would only be a small window of a "chaotic" political system where third parties had a chance, so it's unlikely that any would surpass either the Republican or Democratic Party in enough elections to become the new party of a two-party system...and make no mistake, the two-party system would reestablish itself within two election cycles or so, because that's how our "first-past-the-post" winner-take-all plurality voting system works. The reason it would be so difficult for one of the third parties to supplant either major party is because they'd all be scrambling and fighting each other for the same piece of pie during their brief window of opportunity...even similar ones like the LP and CP. If we created a new third party, that would simply be another to add to the mix, because the others have already proven they aren't willing to merge or go anywhere. The third party route is the road to completely splintering the liberty vote, as proven by the Barr/Baldwin/Write-in-Paul/Abstain campaigns in 2008 and the Johnson/Goode/Write-in-Paul/Abstain campaigns in 2012.

With plurality voting, splitting the vote doesn't exactly do much for us...and as much as that applies to Presidential races, it applies doubly to Congressional races: During the brief window of "third party opportunity" following a miraculous Presidential win, a single third party starting from an extremely limited funding base and infrastructure of nearly zero would need to win a huge number of Congressional seats immediately to even build the credibility to build the donor infrastructure for further wins in the future. (Otherwise, the system will settle again on the R's and D's.) This is a chicken-and-egg problem, because you can't win that many Congressional seats if you don't already have the donor infrastructure.

Under the current voting system, you need a huge preexisting donor infrastructure and mindshare to win a lot of simultaneous elections, and you need to have a proven track record of winning a lot of simultaneous elections to build up a huge donor system in the first place. This completely rules out third parties as a viable choice for taking Congress: The only way third parties will ever have a hope of taking power is if we change the voting system entirely...but we need to take power first to do that, so a third party-focused strategy is completely futile. Voting for third parties in general elections is still a great idea when there are no major party liberty candidates in the race, because after all, why not? Still, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to pursue third parties as our primary political strategy: Just because buying a lottery ticket for $1 gives you a chance to win does not mean it's a good idea to spent all your money on lottery tickets. There's a huge opportunity cost.

The strategy to take over the Republican Party has already shown gains in a very short amount of time with a very small number of backers, considering we've already taken over some state parties with activists alone. The rest of the state parties can be taken over the same way, and the RNC can be taken over the same way. The ONLY obstacle here great enough to cause failure is people's emotional unwillingness to have anything to do with the Republican Party...oh, they're too corrupt, too tainted, too dirty, blah blah, and we'll get the taint on us and end up just like them. (The latter is untrue, because unlike every other political movement ever, each of us have firm principles we're unwilling to compromise; we each differ on exactly what they are, but we present a stark contrast to every other political movement in the history of mankind, which has been based entirely on subjective utilitarianism in the pursuit of some abstract goal or religion.) If enough of us let that deter us, the strategy will fail...but at least there's a scenario where it can be successful, unlike the third party strategy.

Are there ifs, ands, and buts? Sure. Even after we take over, we'll have to fight the MSM's attempts to delegitimize the party and establishment attempts to create a new party to replace us...but even that will be a relative win over the current situation, because it has a better chance of giving other third parties an opening than any other strategy. If we instead pursue a third party political strategy from the outset, we'll get as far as the LP has gotten and continues to get...unless we split the third party vote up farther by creating a new party, in which case the additional fragmentation will cause us to come up even shorter. (Now, if the entire country collapses before we can stop it, THEN the party system could really be shaken up, but nobody can accurately predict what will happen at that point.)

Now, pursuing political action is the only way to actually change laws and policies: Agorism won't bring down the state, because an economy without famine is an economy that relies on large-scale capital goods to produce consumer goods, and those can't exactly be hidden from the IRS. The state will always be able to tax enough to exist and enact violence, so it cannot be ignored. However, there are a LOT of other things that need to be done aside from - that is in addition to, not instead of - political action:

We need to become influential voices in our communities and beyond. We need liberty teachers, professors, economists, journalists, talking heads, authors, artists, comics, TV/film directors/producers/writers, lawyers, and pastors. We need people to take on influential roles in their communities...but that said, a lot of community roles come back to government and politics: Sheriffs, county commissioners, prosecutors, school board members, etc...we can avoid these positions to avoid becoming corrupted by them, but that guarantees they'll be filled by total statists. Weighing exposure and influence and denying positions to statists over hazards of the job are difficult judgment calls to make on an individual basis. (Is none of that your calling? Become an entrepreneur and try to make it big, so you have the funds to spread influence that way. ;)) These are the ways we will convert the masses to a libertarian or Constitutionalist or anti-federalist ideology: Not through logical argumentation, but by demonstrating influence, popularity, and ubiquity.

[acptulsa]

Half-serious question: Have you ever made an optimistic or non-judgmental post? Just because you prefer a more "all or nothing" approach does not mean that quickly closing down 90% of bases and leaving the rest for another debate would somehow be the end of this movement...if that were even what Rand would propose.

Make no mistake: I'm no advocate of "baby steps," and I prefer Ron's approach to Rand's, but I'm not going to go out of my way to crap all over someone if they [might] want to knock out the easy spending/bases/etc. first to get a foothold, either...IF that's even what Rand would propose. Moreover, I'm certainly not going to bash someone based on a mere guess of what he'd propose. Sheesh.

This.


Dems don't even give lip-service to liberty issues. At least the GOP pretends to want a free market and less government.

What Democrats are you speaking of? Obama? The Democratic rank and file cares very much about liberty issues.

For years I argued that just a few Libertarians in Congress would make a big difference beyond their numbers, as they would vote with Democrats on civil liberty issues (warrants, wiretapping, prohibition) and Republicans on issues involving free markets and reducing government. Back then, it would have worked, too. Of course, 'back then' was before 9/11 made everything go completely haywire and we wound up with Democrats voting for crap like the PATRIOT Act. Now both parties seem past salvage and past salvation.

Seems to me we, of all people, should be seeing through this false left/right crap. We still have a little way to go.


The ONLY obstacle here great enough to cause failure is people's emotional unwillingness to have anything to do with the Republican Party...oh, they're too corrupt, too tainted, too dirty, blah blah, and we'll get the taint on us and end up just like them. (The latter is untrue, because unlike every other political movement ever, each of us have firm principles we're unwilling to compromise; we each differ on exactly what they are, but we present a stark contrast to every other political movement in the history of mankind, which has been based entirely on subjective utilitarianism in the pursuit of some abstract goal or religion.)

I agree with every part of your excellent post but this. Unless you're including us as part and parcel of the original American Revolution, and consider us merely a continuation of that. In which case I agree with this too.

[jkr]

they are already BOTH focused on the liberty mvmt...if we fly a standard, they will have something to parade around while they attack us-see the "tea party"

take them over, then destroy BOTH "major" parties

[Feeding the Abscess]

Half-serious question: Have you ever made an optimistic or non-judgmental post? Just because you prefer a more "all or nothing" approach does not mean that quickly closing down 90% of bases and leaving the rest for another debate would somehow be the end of this movement...if that were even what Rand would propose. Is it? I don't know, and as far as I'm concerned, it sounds like you're just bringing up Rand out of the blue for the sole sake of bashing him with melodramatic pronouncements.

Yes, I'm familiar with Ron Paul's quote in your signature, and he's correct that the state has an intense hunger and tendency to steadily grow, but he didn't exactly rigorously back up his assertion that liberty "cannot" be regained incrementally. This mentality is extremely popular among hardcore libertarians, yet it's little more than unsubstantiated dogma, because showing the tendency of government to grow in the absence of an organized effort to scale it down to zero does not prove the impossibility of such an organized effort to work. (No, the establishment Republican Party's failure does not even remotely count, because they have no earnest libertarian or limited government ideology whatsoever.) This whole attitude is based not on logic or reason but on an emotional revulsion to the idea of incrementalism...even huge "leaps and bounds" incrementalism.

Make no mistake: I'm no advocate of "baby steps," and I prefer Ron's approach to Rand's, but I'm not going to go out of my way to crap all over someone if they [might] want to knock out the easy spending/bases/etc. first to get a foothold, either...IF that's even what Rand would propose. Moreover, I'm certainly not going to bash someone based on a mere guess of what he'd propose. Sheesh.

I got the 75 number from Doug Wead, it's not some emotional, knee-jerk reaction to Rand Paul.

I oppose the foreign policy because it is immoral, not because it is too big or inefficient. Starting at a position of keeping 75 bases open around the world would leave the worst bases open (hot-zone bases), and would assuredly lead to a final result of having many hundred more still in operation.

[Okie RP fan]

I prefer an emerging third party that can compete at the national level every election, starting with perhaps the Independent party, then working our way to currently "smaller" parties such as the Libertarian, or Constitution parties.

However, in order to do so, we must inject our ideas into the existing parties. And we need to promote third parties however we can. If it means registering Democrat, do it. Republican, do it.

We MUST play their game to an extent in order to achieve a more fair process that gives the PEOPLE more options.

[paulbot24]

Rand Paul
Liberty candidate.......................check
Appeals to GOP base..................check
Appeals to independents.............check
Can refute neoncons..................check
Necessary television "charisma"....check

I believe we have our solution. (Conveniently, our "President Paul" chant still works too.):D

[Mini-Me]

I got the 75 number from Doug Wead, it's not some emotional, knee-jerk reaction to Rand Paul.
Doug Wead, as in, not Rand Paul? Regardless, you still brought Rand up out of the blue to bash him.


I oppose the foreign policy because it is immoral, not because it is too big or inefficient.
Holy crap, you do? You oppose empire because it's immoral? You must be the only one on the forum! Now I totally understand, because I cannot POSSIBLY imagine someone who opposes an imperial foreign policy for moral reasons thinking that eliminating 90% of the bases in a fell swoop would help reduce current and future death and destruction. :rolleyes:

The vast majority of people here oppose war and empire primarily for moral reasons. This includes not only hardcore libertarians - such as myself - but a whole boatload of anti-federalists, Constitutionalists, and even paleocons ("just war" theory and all that). Besides, the "too big" and "inefficient" aspects impact moral issues as well, because the way things are going, a petrodollar collapse might result in World War III. This is less likely now that we dodged a bullet (no Mitt Romney), but it could still happen, so cutting spending just might be the way to prevent a nuclear holocaust.


Starting at a position of keeping 75 bases open around the world would leave the worst bases open (hot-zone bases), and would assuredly lead to a final result of having many hundred more still in operation.

The first part is correct: The hot-zone bases would remain if we cut back to 75, because it's harder to convince people to close them. (It might be easier after the others are closed though, because, "See? The world didn't end.") That's no excuse not to take what we can get when we can get it: If someone thinks we can eliminate all but 75 immediately and you think we can eliminate all of them immediately, then great...but for Pete's sake, cut out the melodrama about anyone disagreeing with your analysis being the "end of the movement."

Doug Wead may believe that campaigning on cutting back to zero immediately would risk no cuts at all, due to voter rejection...and if he believes this, he might be right. If we cut down to 75, then 35, then 10, then zero, and we keep up the pressure, we're eventually going to get rid of all of them. The risk is that we might be shooting too low, in which case we could have gotten rid of all of them sooner before more people died.

I can understand the fear that if we aim to cut down to 75 in one step we'll only actually cut down to 200 in one step...but that is a practical matter, and there's a flip side to that coin: If we try for all of them at once, fail utterly, try again, fail utterly, and keep trying and failing utterly, then we will have gotten rid of none, and more people will keep being killed over and over and over due to our stubborn insistence on perfection in the face of pure evil. In the meantime, we might have made it to zero by then if we had taken another path. NONE of us no for sure where the optimal radicalism/gradualism balance is for getting to zero as quickly as possible: We all have our opinions, but no one knows for sure.

In short, radicalism vs. incrementalism/gradualism is not always a moral issue, at least with respect to the NAP. Most of the time, it is a strategic disagreement between people with similar or even identical morality trying to determine just how much violence and coercion they can eliminate in any given step. You implicitly conceded this the moment you supported Ron Paul, because even in 2008, he did not run on the platform of "abolish the state immediately."

I believe in shooting as high as reasonably possible, and I believe eliminating all the bases in a single term is reasonably possible given the right political circumstances...but if someone else genuinely believes otherwise, I'm not going to sit quietly while people crap all over him like he's some kind of poison pill. If someone else runs for President under a genuine platform of reining in the state as much as he thinks he can in every possible area (without expanding it anywhere), I'm sure as hell not going to say, "I'd go farther, so he's the death of the movement," and stand aside out of spite while he loses to Bomby McCrazy. THAT's the kind of attitude that could lead to the death of the movement.

Everyone has their litmus test, and I will not go out of my way to support anyone who would increase government in virtually any area, with case-by-case exceptions regarding the contentious abortion and border issues. The exceptions here introduce an element of risk, but practical concerns necessitate them, or I could have never supported anyone, including Ron Paul. ;) When it comes to voting alone, I'll vote for the best candidate available if there's a clear best...and abstain otherwise. Some lean more toward abstaining for reasons of moral responsibility, and I can respect that as long as they aren't too judgy toward others. Some people are willing to further compromise, which I do consider increasingly dangerous. For instance, I'm not convinced that Ted Cruz is an authentic liberty candidate or worth all the effort spent on him...but time will tell. Besides, many here are Constitutionalists anyway, and they abide by their own hard principles (though I'm not sure if Cruz meets that standard or not...). Some people outright refuse to support or vote for anyone unless they'd go "really far, really fast," which I kind of consider pointless and counterproductive when the choice is between someone who wants to incrementally reduce government in every area vs. someone who wants to increase it in some areas (or every area)...but to each their own. People can abstain if they want, when they want.

Nobody has to support anyone...that's not my concern. My concern is that the extreme judgmentalness toward anyone who isn't "radical enough" in terms of rhetoric or timescale is getting absolutely ludicrous. Murray Rothbard was a champion of radicalism...and yet even Murray Rothbard would be ASHAMED at how libertarians are behaving today. If you think a liberty candidate isn't radical enough, don't eat them alive and do everything you can to discourage people. Instead, prove you can do better.

[paulbot24]

/\/\/\ Well said sir.

[Paul4Prez]

Yes, we can support the most pro-liberty candidate in the Republican primary, then switch to 3rd party in the general if we don't win, and it's the best option.

Very few people vote in the primaries. 10 million votes would win the nomination. We can all do the math. A third party candidate gets ignored by the media, unless you can find a big time pro-liberty billionaire. But win the Republican nomination, and you start out with 40 million automatic votes and endless media attention.

[MadOdorMachine]

I think we need to come up with a plan to support a third party candidate and we need to do start on it now. Here are two articles I find interesting -

http://www.infowars.com/2012-us-elections-the-people-have-spoken-no-confidence/

http://www.infowars.com/forget-1-99-or-47-it-is-the-turn-of-the-70-to-be-pissed/

To put it simply, our target needs to be the large chunk of the population that doesn't vote. We need to get the grassroots movement on the ground and get money bombs lined up. We'll also need to use alternative media and word of mouth because the MSM won't help.

Probably the first thing we need to do is get a candidate we can throw our support behind - preferably a liberty minded veteran. It would be nice if Ron Paul would endorse a third party candidate, but that might not be probable if Rand is planning on running. The problem with Rand is that I don't see the GOP getting behind him. They've done too much damage to our movement and disenfranchised too many people. Everything I've heard come out of Republican's mouth's on T.V. indicates to me that they have absolutely no clue on why they lost the election. They aren't listening to us or the Tea Party. A lot of them don't like Ron and I don't think they'll let Rand get the nomination either, so I really think we should go with third party.

[Mini-Me]

I think we need to come up with a plan to support a third party candidate and we need to do start on it now. Here are two articles I find interesting -

http://www.infowars.com/2012-us-elections-the-people-have-spoken-no-confidence/

http://www.infowars.com/forget-1-99-or-47-it-is-the-turn-of-the-70-to-be-pissed/

To put it simply, our target needs to be the large chunk of the population that doesn't vote. We need to get the grassroots movement on the ground and get money bombs lined up. We'll also need to use alternative media and word of mouth because the MSM won't help.

Probably the first thing we need to do is get a candidate we can throw our support behind - preferably a liberty minded veteran. It would be nice if Ron Paul would endorse a third party candidate, but that might not be probable if Rand is planning on running. The problem with Rand is that I don't see the GOP getting behind him. They've done too much damage to our movement and disenfranchised too many people. Everything I've heard come out of Republican's mouth's on T.V. indicates to me that they have absolutely no clue on why they lost the election. They aren't listening to us or the Tea Party. A lot of them don't like Ron and I don't think they'll let Rand get the nomination either, so I really think we should go with third party.

Leveraging non-voters in a third-party strategy is nearly impossible: Third parties have been around forever, there's one for nearly every ideology, and yet after all this time, the non-voters still haven't seen fit to care. A highly organized GOTV program specifically focused on third parties hasn't been tried before, but if it's too narrow, it too closely resembles things that HAVE been tried before (see the LP and the last 40 years), and if it's too broad, you run into the fragmentation issues I was talking about a few posts back (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394902-This-movement-is-at-a-significant-crossroads&p=4722320&viewfull=1#post4722320). More importantly, the vast majority of non-voters are not abstaining from a feeling of disenfranchisement anyway. The vast majority of non-voters are completely apathetic and have no comprehension of how politics and government affect their daily lives, and convincing them to care is like pulling teeth. Surely you know some. ;)

Anyway, you seem to be missing the point of the GOP strategy: It's not about hoping and praying that the GOP leadership accepts Rand, and it goes without saying they won't. With respect to Presidential elections, the point of the GOP strategy is to take over the rest of the state parties and replace the RNC over the next few years, so WE become the leadership before 2016, and so WE set the rules. It's doable with activists alone, and what's more, it's our best shot at a national donor infrastructure for taking Congress...which is absolutely crucial to any long-term political strategy.

[MadOdorMachine]

Leveraging non-voters in a third-party strategy is nearly impossible: Third parties have been around forever, there's one for nearly every ideology, and yet after all this time, the non-voters still haven't seen fit to care. A highly organized GOTV program specifically focused on third parties hasn't been tried before, but if it's too narrow, it too closely resembles things that HAVE been tried before (see the LP and the last 40 years), and if it's too broad, you run into the fragmentation issues I was talking about a few posts back (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394902-This-movement-is-at-a-significant-crossroads&p=4722320&viewfull=1#post4722320). More importantly, the vast majority of non-voters are not abstaining from a feeling of disenfranchisement anyway. The vast majority of non-voters are completely apathetic and have no comprehension of how politics and government affect their daily lives, and convincing them to care is like pulling teeth. Surely you know some. ;)

Anyway, you seem to be missing the point of the GOP strategy: It's not about hoping and praying that the GOP leadership accepts Rand, and it goes without saying they won't. With respect to Presidential elections, the point of the GOP strategy is to take over the rest of the state parties and replace the RNC over the next few years, so WE become the leadership before 2016, and so WE set the rules. It's doable with activists alone, and what's more, it's our best shot at a national donor infrastructure for taking Congress...which is absolutely crucial to any long-term political strategy.

Maybe the non-voters haven't cared because they didn't think they stood a chance. The best example is Ross Perot. He actually got a lot of support because he was able to get into debates. We also have alternative media which we've only just got recently. There's a better opportunity now than there ever has been for a third party candidate. We can get a big chunk of them to vote if there is enough momentum.

As far as the GOP strategy, I think it would take a lot longer than 2016 to take over. This is something we should be doing anyway though in addition to my proposal. People need to start getting more proactive in the political process I agree.

[nasaal]

I would rather a third party. Sorry but 2 party politics seems a broken idea to me. Two party monopoly is subject to no one. Because they can be pretty much the same(they are) and even if people stop going to vote in mass, they still get the remaining votes and win anyway.

[CTRattlesnake]

To the person referencing the Ross Perot campaign in 1992, remember that Perot actually DROPPED OUT of the race in the summer, after he was leading in a bunch of polls against Bush and Clinton. He re-entered the race and still pulled the 15% needed to get into the debates.

His campaign shows that a third party candidate that is well funded and given enough attention can be successful. I truly believe he would have won if he stayed in for the entire thing, but there is no way of knowing for sure.

The American people want another voice in politics but too often they 1, dont know who that voice is, and 2, the voice is not close to being funded enough to win.