Why Libertarians are Failing at Politics

[PierzStyx]

"Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center dropped a truth bomb on the beltway in his recent piece for Fox News about the decline of Rand Paul. Taylor notes that the alleged growth of the libertarian movement in the wake of the Ron Paul campaign was largely illusory. The alienated populists and conspiracy theorists that filled out Paul’s numbers in 2012 easily made the transition to the very un-libertarian Donald Trump in 2015, leaving Rand out in the cold.

The lack of a broad-based movement, despite a number of high profile campaigns and events, is a bitter pill for libertarians who believe in electoral politics. Having libertarians in office may help raise the profile of issues like overcriminalization, tech freedom, and the insanity of the drug war. But those who await a libertarian takeover of the GOP misunderstand the fundamentally radical nature of libertarian ideas and how deeply that radicalism conflicts with the perceptions most Americans have about the role of government.

Trump supporters are a grim reminder that millions of voters view the government as a hammer that can be wielded to smash opposing values or groups and force their beliefs on others. Educating the electorate about libertarian ideas misses the fact that they have no real incentive to learn; most don’t care about the relationship between man and state and likely never will, as long as the state continues to provide the stability they have come to expect. Ron Paul’s success in 2008 and 2012 can largely be credited to the mortgage crisis; once the sting faded, so did support for his radical ideas.

There’s a good reason libertarians remain at the ideological fringe: “Libertarian politics” is a contradiction in terms. Libertarianism is not a third party, like the Know-Nothings or the Whigs or a prescription of policy tweaks to make the government more efficient. It is a distinct value system that abhors political power itself, even if some of its adherents consider power a necessary evil.

Libertarians may disagree whether the state should be abolished or minimized, but the difference matters little to the average American: Both seem frighteningly outside his own experience. Even the most moderate libertarians will wax poetic about ending intellectual property or privatizing the welfare system. Moreover, virtually all voters are deeply invested in government services they have come to depend on, and libertarians have been unable to present hypothesized private-sector alternatives while the state forces dependence upon itself. Conceptually, libertarians are on a page that most people find bizarre.

Libertarianism is best understood as the latest in a long line of radical liberation ideologies, rooted in the principles of natural law and individualism, that have provided the intellectual basis for rebellion since the American Revolution. It is a reaction to the perpetual expansion of government power in the U.S. and its frequent abuses. But radicalism, by definition, is immoderate and cannot compromise its way to reforms. Rather than moving toward the “Overton window” of public opinion by moderating controversial views (as Rand Paul attempted), radicals must pull public opinion towards their own viewpoints. Rand’s straying from libertarian principles means that he likely has little unique appeal even for the tiny libertarian electorate his father created. David Boaz’s research shows that 70% of libertarian-leaning voters went with Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson in 2012, so we know even libertarians who believe in politics are willing to blunt their own sword.

If libertarianism is denied its radical characteristics, it degrades into a flimsy millennial conservatism: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies. Without unyielding commitment to truly radical ideas, libertarians are drowned out by louder voices catering to the will of angry, pitchfork-bearing constituents. They add little of value, and are likely to end up little more than a footnote in the history of conservatism.

To fail to understand this is to remain resigned to swim against the tide of American politics. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out: “Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide.”

Instead, libertarians might be more useful as single-issue activists and innovators. While U.S. politicians fail to shrink government, individualists like Erik Voorhees, Cody Wilson, Peter Thiel and the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto are using technology to forge a new path. Time will tell exactly where that leads. But Rand’s decline underlines the fact that libertarian ethics predicate disruption and revolution, not moderation and compromise. As such, it is unlikely to ever get big votes in American politics."

https://c4ss.org/content/40819

[jllundqu]

Can't say I disagree with much in that article.

[William Tell]

libertarian leaning politicians are doing better in electoral politics on the state level than ever before. Rand's presidential bid does not define the nationwide liberty movement.

[Cabal]

The more radicals, the merrier.

[Acala]

This article boils down to little more than "libertarians are not winning elections because their ideas are not popular." No kidding. The more important question is why? The article touches on the fact that people are ever more dependent on government programs, but there is more to it than that. The libertarian position is based on reason and the vast majority of people simply are not persuaded by reason, at least not to the extent that they develop a reasoned view of policy and vote on it. Instead, the majority of people are persuaded by, and vote on, emotion. The candidate who most effectively manipulates the fear, jealousy, resentment, hatred, guilt, trust, attraction, etc. of the voters wins. Reason doesn't win so libertarians don't win.

[Sola_Fide]

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies.

This is completely wrong. It mixes up personal morality with government, as all critiques of libertarianism do (and some libertarians do this as well).

Libertarianism is not "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". Even saying that already presupposes that legislation and morality are the same thing.

[seapilot]

Libertarian ideology is radical for those that want to control other peoples lives.

[H. E. Panqui]

:rolleyes:

...the author is dense...

...no honest 'libertarian' ever voted for stinking mitt romney....ugh...

...i do know a few (ron paul) 'libertarians' still registered as republicans who will be supporting the hot-air balloon trump in the republican primary as a way to poison/infect this stinking rotten republican party...

..trump v. hillary...great! entertainment value and a great tactic for those of us hoping to kill this stinking republicrat party inc.!

[Acala]

This is completely wrong. It mixes up personal morality with government, as all critiques of libertarianism do (and some libertarians do this as well).

Libertarianism is not "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". Even saying that already presupposes that legislation and morality are the same thing.

I think by socially liberal they mean the government stops telling people what to do with their personal lives. It does NOT mean that libertarians use their freedom in any particular way.

[Ronin Truth]

How are "political libertarians"(so called) really any different than statists?

[Ronin Truth]

Libertarian ideology is radical for those that want to control other peoples lives.

Libertarianism in one sentence: "Other people are not your property."

[Acala]

How are "political libertarians"(so called) really any different than statists?

The agenda of the political libertarian (including Ron Paul) is to dismantle the state through established political process while a statist seeks to enhance the scope and power of the state. Pretty big difference, I think, whether or not you think the political libertarians will succeed.

[Ronin Truth]

The agenda of the political libertarian (including Ron Paul) is to dismantle the state through established political process while a statist seeks to enhance the scope and power of the state. Pretty big difference, I think, whether or not you think the political libertarians will succeed.

When did Ron ever call himself a libertarian?

[H. E. Panqui]

...'libertarians' would be wise to get serious, specific, practical, etc., as to the hideous monetary order under which we rot and groan...

...i have communicated with many 'ludwiggers' who fancy themselves 'libertarians' and knowledgeable about 'economics' :rolleyes: who spend lots and lots of time vomiting about the illion 'dollar' economy whilst worse than ignorant of the twisted, destructive origin and nature of even one 'dollar'...word...these ludwigging blowhards opine about some theoretical future absent an honest understanding of the pre$ent...and pa$t..

...and 'libertarianism' will be easy to $ell when you get 'the/a microphone' in the hands of some of the many wonderful libertarians we all know...instead of poisonous phony 'libertarians' :rolleyes: like glen stinking beck and 'kneel boor'......and the rest of the stinking republicans :o who fancy themselves 'libertarian'...i'm pleasantly surprised 'libertarianism' is as popular as it is given the many high profile 'conservative republican' f@ckheads who claim adherence and spread destructive misinformation about 'libertarianism'...

...btw, ronin truth, wasn't ron paul calling himself 'libertarian' in 1988?...at least...

[Contumacious]

"Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center dropped a truth bomb on the beltway in his recent piece for Fox News about the decline of Rand Paul. Taylor notes that the alleged growth of the libertarian movement in the wake of the Ron Paul campaign was largely illusory. ]

BULLSHIT


Libertarianism ONLY promises to protect and defend your right to Life, Liberty, Property and to pursue Happiness


We Do NOT promise

1- to feed you

2- to provide free health insurance

3- to clothe you

4- to quench your thirst

5- free education

6- we REJECT the welfare/warfare police state


Americans are narcotized - but the Libertarian Party MUST NOT succumb to clamors demanding the it become electable.


So if you like the staus quo then vote DEMOPUBLICAN.


.

[Occam's Banana]

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies.

This is completely wrong. It mixes up personal morality with government, as all critiques of libertarianism do (and some libertarians do this as well).

Libertarianism is not "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". Even saying that already presupposes that legislation and morality are the same thing.

I think you misread what the author was trying to say. Note the colon preceding "Fiscally" (the "f" should not have been capitalized, as it makes what follows the colon look like a separate sentence, albeit a grammatically incomplete one).


If libertarianism is denied its radical characteristics, it degrades into a flimsy millennial conservatism: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies.

So he wasn't using the phrase "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" to describe "libertarianism" - he was using it to describe what he called "flimsy millennial conservatism."

[cajuncocoa]

"Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center dropped a truth bomb on the beltway in his recent piece for Fox News about the decline of Rand Paul. Taylor notes that the alleged growth of the libertarian movement in the wake of the Ron Paul campaign was largely illusory. The alienated populists and conspiracy theorists that filled out Paul’s numbers in 2012 easily made the transition to the very un-libertarian Donald Trump in 2015, leaving Rand out in the cold.

The lack of a broad-based movement, despite a number of high profile campaigns and events, is a bitter pill for libertarians who believe in electoral politics. Having libertarians in office may help raise the profile of issues like overcriminalization, tech freedom, and the insanity of the drug war. But those who await a libertarian takeover of the GOP misunderstand the fundamentally radical nature of libertarian ideas and how deeply that radicalism conflicts with the perceptions most Americans have about the role of government.

Trump supporters are a grim reminder that millions of voters view the government as a hammer that can be wielded to smash opposing values or groups and force their beliefs on others. Educating the electorate about libertarian ideas misses the fact that they have no real incentive to learn; most don’t care about the relationship between man and state and likely never will, as long as the state continues to provide the stability they have come to expect. Ron Paul’s success in 2008 and 2012 can largely be credited to the mortgage crisis; once the sting faded, so did support for his radical ideas.

There’s a good reason libertarians remain at the ideological fringe: “Libertarian politics” is a contradiction in terms. Libertarianism is not a third party, like the Know-Nothings or the Whigs or a prescription of policy tweaks to make the government more efficient. It is a distinct value system that abhors political power itself, even if some of its adherents consider power a necessary evil.

Libertarians may disagree whether the state should be abolished or minimized, but the difference matters little to the average American: Both seem frighteningly outside his own experience. Even the most moderate libertarians will wax poetic about ending intellectual property or privatizing the welfare system. Moreover, virtually all voters are deeply invested in government services they have come to depend on, and libertarians have been unable to present hypothesized private-sector alternatives while the state forces dependence upon itself. Conceptually, libertarians are on a page that most people find bizarre.

Libertarianism is best understood as the latest in a long line of radical liberation ideologies, rooted in the principles of natural law and individualism, that have provided the intellectual basis for rebellion since the American Revolution. It is a reaction to the perpetual expansion of government power in the U.S. and its frequent abuses. But radicalism, by definition, is immoderate and cannot compromise its way to reforms. Rather than moving toward the “Overton window” of public opinion by moderating controversial views (as Rand Paul attempted), radicals must pull public opinion towards their own viewpoints. Rand’s straying from libertarian principles means that he likely has little unique appeal even for the tiny libertarian electorate his father created. David Boaz’s research shows that 70% of libertarian-leaning voters went with Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson in 2012, so we know even libertarians who believe in politics are willing to blunt their own sword.

If libertarianism is denied its radical characteristics, it degrades into a flimsy millennial conservatism: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies. Without unyielding commitment to truly radical ideas, libertarians are drowned out by louder voices catering to the will of angry, pitchfork-bearing constituents. They add little of value, and are likely to end up little more than a footnote in the history of conservatism.

To fail to understand this is to remain resigned to swim against the tide of American politics. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out: “Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide.”

Instead, libertarians might be more useful as single-issue activists and innovators. While U.S. politicians fail to shrink government, individualists like Erik Voorhees, Cody Wilson, Peter Thiel and the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto are using technology to forge a new path. Time will tell exactly where that leads. But Rand’s decline underlines the fact that libertarian ethics predicate disruption and revolution, not moderation and compromise. As such, it is unlikely to ever get big votes in American politics."

https://c4ss.org/content/40819Well, you know....it's time to call the chickens home to roost.

People on this board said those conspiracy folks were toxic to Rand (please go away!).....Rand himself went around reminding everyone that he's not really a libertarian. (Libertarians, go away!) Rand tried to embrace the bigger slice of the pie, Republican voters. Maybe it will work out....it's not over yet.

But many of the people from Ron's base didn't walk out on Rand on their own volition . They were shunned, and pushed away.

[cajuncocoa]

When did Ron ever call himself a libertarian?
1988 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_1988)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Ron_Paul_logo.jpg

[brandon]

I think libertarian politics can probably win national elections with the right candidate. I know I'll get a million neg reps, but Rand Paul is not a very good candidate. He is not charismatic and often appears to lack fortitude.

It's true, libertarian politics are not widely popular, but I think with the right candidate a libertarian-light philosophy could be successfully sold to the masses.

[Contumacious]

I think libertarian politics can probably win national elections with the right candidate. I know I'll get a million neg reps, but Rand Paul is not a very good candidate. He is not charismatic and often appears to lack fortitude.

It's true, libertarian politics are not widely popular, but I think with the right candidate a libertarian-light philosophy could be successfully sold to the masses.



BULLSHIT.


47 - 50% of the electorate is owned by the welfare/warfare state.

You do the math..


.

[William Tell]

BULLSHIT.


47 - 50% of the electorate is owned by the welfare/warfare state.

You do the math..


.

So? Ron Paul was elected to Congress, why do you think it is entirely impossible for someone like him to be elected president? Lake Jackson and his district wasn't entirely comprised of libertarians. It is an uphill battle of course.

[cajuncocoa]

I think libertarian politics can probably win national elections with the right candidate. I know I'll get a million neg reps, but Rand Paul is not a very good candidate. He is not charismatic and often appears to lack fortitude.

It's true, libertarian politics are not widely popular, but I think with the right candidate a libertarian-light philosophy could be successfully sold to the masses.
Good grief. No one should neg rep you for stating this.

+rep to offset any you might get.

[Contumacious]

So? Ron Paul was elected to Congress, why do you think it is entirely impossible for someone like him to be elected president? Lake Jackson and his district wasn't entirely comprised of libertarians. It is an uphill battle of course.

Fort Jackson (Brazoria County ) has about 8% of the population which is considered parasitic. (http://frac.org/pdf/ny_times_snap_poverty_formatted.pdf)


Compare that to New York County where 21.7% is below the federal poverty level.

In addition , I am familiar with both areas - more people subscribe to the work ethic that they do in NY County.

I don't think they would have elected a socialist scumbag as mayor down in Brazoria.


.

[Ronin Truth]

...'libertarians' would be wise to get serious, specific, practical, etc., as to the hideous monetary order under which we rot and groan...

...i have communicated with many 'ludwiggers' who fancy themselves 'libertarians' and knowledgeable about 'economics' :rolleyes: who spend lots and lots of time vomiting about the illion 'dollar' economy whilst worse than ignorant of the twisted, destructive origin and nature of even one 'dollar'...word...these ludwigging blowhards opine about some theoretical future absent an honest understanding of the pre$ent...and pa$t..

...and 'libertarianism' will be easy to $ell when you get 'the/a microphone' in the hands of some of the many wonderful libertarians we all know...instead of poisonous phony 'libertarians' :rolleyes: like glen stinking beck and 'kneel boor'......and the rest of the stinking republicans :o who fancy themselves 'libertarian'...i'm pleasantly surprised 'libertarianism' is as popular as it is given the many high profile 'conservative republican' f@ckheads who claim adherence and spread destructive misinformation about 'libertarianism'...

...btw, ronin truth, wasn't ron paul calling himself 'libertarian' in 1988?...at least...

Actually it was Libertarian AKA the Libertarian Party (oxymoron).

[PierzStyx]

This article boils down to little more than "libertarians are not winning elections because their ideas are not popular." No kidding.

The article boils down to this: Libertarian ideas are radical to the larger community. No surprise. But if libertarians want to successfully enact libertarian ideas they have to hold on to that radical edge and sway more people to their stances. If they don't, if instead they act more like the masses, not only will they be indistinguishable in theory, menaing no one will pay attention or care, then so-called elected "libertarians" will just act like the oppressive majority while justifying it to get elected.

This is why Rand is unpopular. His refusal to hold to libertarians ideas makes him blend in with people like Ted Cruz. Rand doesn't stand out, menaing he neither entices nor invites people to his point of view.

[PierzStyx]

I think libertarian politics can probably win national elections with the right candidate. I know I'll get a million neg reps, but Rand Paul is not a very good candidate. He is not charismatic and often appears to lack fortitude.

It's true, libertarian politics are not widely popular, but I think with the right candidate a libertarian-light philosophy could be successfully sold to the masses.

They can, if they hold to libertarian ideas and don't compromise them to look like everyone else. When they do that, they just look like every other Republican, and act like them too. I mean, there is a reason most people can't tell you the big difference between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

[PierzStyx]

How are "political libertarians"(so called) really any different than statists?
Libertarian ideas allow for minarchism, a minimal state, but a state nonetheless.

[PierzStyx]

This is completely wrong. It mixes up personal morality with government, as all critiques of libertarianism do (and some libertarians do this as well).

Libertarianism is not "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". Even saying that already presupposes that legislation and morality are the same thing.

That is the point. That true libertarianism isn't that, but that is what you get when you compromise the true heart of libertarian ideas to get elected.

[nayjevin]

BULLSHIT.


47 - 50% of the electorate is owned by the welfare/warfare state.

You do the math..


.

Maybe, but that statistic has nothing to do with who is elected president.

Delegates + money

[torchbearer]

we eat our own.

[timosman]

The candidate who most effectively manipulates the fear, jealousy, resentment, hatred, guilt, trust, attraction, etc. of the voters wins.

You forgot envy. The most interesting thing about envy is no one will admit to it. :eek:

[fisharmor]

Libertarian ideas allow for minarchism, a minimal state, but a state nonetheless.

I'll agree with this. Yes, libertarian ideals allow for minarchism.

What you need to realize is that what we have right now, this very second, in the USA, is minarchism.

Oh, I get what you're saying - but what you call minarchism, what you have in your head when you use that word, is every bit as foreign to the political makeup of this country right now as anarchism is. Lew Rockwell nailed it twice - first, several years ago when he observed that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to use the state to shove people around overseas, and Democrats want to use it to shove people around at home. Neither side will ever agree to simply stop shoving people around. Second, recently, when he and Tom Woods observed that there isn't anyone effectively calling them out on it, now that Ron isn't on stage anymore.

If you want to move the conversation away from "reduce the size and scope of government" (the failed, failing, and always-will-fail talking point of Republicans, and the current accepted definition of "minarchism") and toward simply stopping the use of government altogether, you're going to have as uphill a battle as anarchists have getting their point across. In the public's estimation, they are the same idea. And they're right.

I'll agree that using the political process to achieve libertarian goals may be possible. But I also recognize that doing this will require every bit as much education as anything else we try.

[TheTexan]

Libertarians fail at politics because they are notoriously bad voters. They don't even try to be good at it. If you don't put in the practice, you won't get good results.

[fisharmor]

Libertarians fail at politics because they are notoriously bad voters. They don't even try to be good at it. If you don't put in the practice, you won't get good results.

Hey man, don't blame me, it's the equipment. Writing in my own name eight times on a touchscreen is very time consuming.

[Badger Paul]

"If libertarianism is denied its radical characteristics, it degrades into a flimsy millennial conservatism"

Oh, but how those conservatives just love to steal libertarian clothes from the swimming hole and wear them when they want to! Especially when they're not in power. Why do this if these ideas were not remotely popular? They can be, in right circumstances as is all things in politics.

If said conservatives were Tories instead of movement types, this would not be a problem and they wouldn't act like they hate government. But to use such rhetoric to gain power for its own ends and then to use that power to act like anyone else would when they have it is truly the most disgusting feature of our modern politics. If so kudos to Trump for basically smashing this hypocrisy. He's not running like a typical conservative and the "base" loves him for it. More power to him.

I would have never have supported Ron Paul if he was a Randian objectivist or libertarian ideologue. He knows what sells and what doesn't from years actually winning elections. But what he offered was a workable, practical means to a libertarian end i.e. destroying the national security state and the military-industrial complex to bring about the smaller government said voters and activists all say they want. You can't get it by taking out Amtrak. The power of government lies within such means of power, its arsenal, it surveliance, its long reach by its spies. It stays in power by keeping people afraid. Ron Paul offered a true breakthrough and movement can still do so long as its stays alive and waits for events to finally shift the politics to its advantage.

[Anti Federalist]

Can't say I disagree with much in that article.

Nope.

Pretty much on target.

tl;dr - people hate freedom and do not want it.

[BUTSRSLY]

Nope.

Pretty much on target.

tl;dr - people hate freedom and do not want it.

ESPECIALLY WHEN CAMPING (EVERYONE LOVES GAME WARDEN)

OR SHOPPING (EVERYONE LOVES SALES TAX)

OR TRAVELLING (EVERYONE LOVES TSA)

OR HUNTING (EVERYONE LOVES GUNGRABBERS)

OR WEBSURFING (EVERYONE LOVES SPYWARE)

OR....

OR MAYBE YOU'RE WRONG

[Anti Federalist]

ESPECIALLY WHEN CAMPING (EVERYONE LOVES GAME WARDEN)

OR SHOPPING (EVERYONE LOVES SALES TAX)

OR TRAVELLING (EVERYONE LOVES TSA)

OR HUNTING (EVERYONE LOVES GUNGRABBERS)

OR WEBSURFING (EVERYONE LOVES SPYWARE)

OR....

OR MAYBE YOU'RE WRONG

Nah, I'm not wrong.

People put up with all those things because they figure the next guy is getting it just a little worse than they are.

[cajuncocoa]

Libertarians fail at politics because they are notoriously bad voters. They don't even try to be good at it. If you don't put in the practice, you won't get good results.
I take exception to that, bxm042. I'm a libertarian and I vote very hard.

[fisharmor]

I would have never have supported Ron Paul if he was a Randian objectivist or libertarian ideologue.
I knew who "libertarians" were before Ron Paul. They were the ones who chose abortion on demand as their campaign issue.


He knows what sells and what doesn't from years actually winning elections.
I don't think that was the case at all. I think the bind we're in is that very few people seem to realize that Ron Paul didn't "sell" anything.
He made the case for his point of view and convinced people that it was morally and logically more sound than the alternatives that actually were being "sold".
I must have heard him get asked a dozen times why people liked him, and he would always correct the questioner by saying it's not him, it's the message. And that the reason why it resonates with people is because freedom is popular.

There are two ways to get a product in the hands of people. You can take out late night TV ads that promise a better life and push them on cold calls to buy your crap. Or you can simply have a quality product, and people will do your advertising work for you once they get your product and are happy with it because of its objective merits.

Libertarians are failing at politics these days because we've strayed very far from the latter option.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone to get a Samsung phone because even though it's technically quite similar to my old HTC phone, my S5 has successfully done away with much of what I really appreciated about the HTC.
I'm not going to go shill for libertarianism if its greatest proponent is the functional equivalent of that S5. Slicker, more attractive and approachable than what I had before, but fundamentally not doing what I've come to expect.

[Indy Vidual]

1988 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_1988)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Ron_Paul_logo.jpg

+1988 :)

[fisharmor]

People put up with all those things because they figure the next guy is getting it just a little worse than they are.

You know how many instant libertarians you can make by talking to people walking out of a courthouse?

It's a lot.

[Ronin Truth]

A radical libertarian believes in little to no government intervention for both personal and economic matters. A radical libertarian generally believes in one out of these two options: (1) A government that is extremely small and limited to the extent of protecting people's liberty - this view is known as Minarchism (2) No government at all, in which the private sector takes up all legitimate functions that a government would have - this view is known as Anarcho-Capitalism. Radical Libertarians tend to be strongly opposed to war, police powers, victimless crimes, foreign intervention and what they consider to be a welfare state. Radical Libertarians tend to be inspired by the Austrian school of economics, classical liberalism and 19th century individualist anarchism. Libertarian thought is individualist in nature. They try to protect both personal and economic liberty. Examples of Radical Libertarianism would be Murray Rothbard, H.L. Mencken, Ludwig Von Mises and Lysander Spooner.

[H. E. Panqui]

...words words words...it seems to me in order to truly 'comm'unicate 'we' must have a ''comm'on understanding of the words we use...

...i don't know about you, but i render 'government' down to 'force'...coercion..

...so 'anarchy' (literally 'without rule/government') is a utopian fantasy/fallacy...a complete misunderstanding of human nature...

...because in an 'anarchist' society much [self] government will result...i catch you in my daughter's bedroom, safe, refrigerator, etc., in anarkville and you will feel any government i can muster....

...too much stinking theory from ludwiggers for me...ime, many MANY of the ludwiggers i've met can be found working their holes about some 'illion dollar economy' absent an honest clue as to the HIDEOUS origin and nature of even one stinking 'dollar'...

[kahless]

I think they fail due to the following most obvious reasons.

1. Support of open borders which makes living in a libertarian region impossible. They consistently support immigration from people for which all polls show demand big government and militantly reject libertarian beliefs.

2. Failure to present alternative non-government solutions or provide working examples particularly when it comes to the poor and social welfare. The majority of the country is made up on compassionate Christians. Not only do they not provide examples and solutions to Christians, libertarians frequently come across as bigoted uncompassionate, anti-Christian atheists.

3. When libertarians seek to cut government programs their number one priority is to go after the middle class and poor first rather than corporate welfare or the military industrial complex. For example social security is the first program they attack. They seek to raise the age and eliminate it altogether. They reject the argument the money you paid in will be returned to you since it has already spent. They claim any money returned to you would be money stolen from others.

4. Fixation over the legalization of marijuana over everything else. Appearing as single issue young and druggie voters.

5. Refusal to work within the system to further their agenda or support candidates that hold their beliefs that are working within the system.

6. Rather than an orderly transition to achieve their goals many see an economic collapse or revolution as a viable solution regardless of the death or suffering that may result.

7. Stand against tribalism. People are drawn to live with their own kind and reject assimilation - melting pot Progressive ideology. libertarians have aligned themselves with the fringe left elements like black lives matter which is wholly rejected by much of society.

[Scrapmo]

ESPECIALLY WHEN CAMPING (EVERYONE LOVES GAME WARDEN)

OR SHOPPING (EVERYONE LOVES SALES TAX)

OR TRAVELLING (EVERYONE LOVES TSA)

OR HUNTING (EVERYONE LOVES GUNGRABBERS)

OR WEBSURFING (EVERYONE LOVES SPYWARE)

OR....

OR MAYBE YOU'RE WRONG

He's not wrong. They put up with all that because they are terrified of what may happen if they don't. Suggest that we abolish sales tax, gun regs, game wardens and you will see how much they hate freedom.
Most people do not have a clue what freedom is. Most people think it's the ability to vote for a new field boss every few years.

[Contumacious]

I think they fail due to the following most obvious reasons.

1. Support of open borders which makes living in a libertarian region impossible. They consistently support immigration from people for which all polls show demand big government and militantly reject libertarian beliefs.

2. Failure to present alternative non-government solutions or provide working examples particularly when it comes to the poor and social welfare. The majority of the country is made up on compassionate Christians. Not only do they not provide examples and solutions to Christians, libertarians frequently come across as bigoted uncompassionate, anti-Christian atheists.

3. When libertarians seek to cut government programs their number one priority is to go after the middle class and poor first rather than corporate welfare or the military industrial complex. For example social security is the first program they attack. They seek to raise the age and eliminate it altogether. They reject the argument the money you paid in will be returned to you since it has already spent. They claim any money returned to you would be money stolen from others.

4. Fixation over the legalization of marijuana over everything else. Appearing as single issue young and druggie voters.

5. Refusal to work within the system to further their agenda or support candidates that hold their beliefs that are working within the system.

6. Rather than an orderly transition to achieve their goals many see an economic collapse or revolution as a viable solution regardless of the death or suffering that may result.

7. Stand against tribalism. People are drawn to live with their own kind and reject assimilation - melting pot Progressive ideology. libertarians have aligned themselves with the fringe left elements like black lives matter which is wholly rejected by much of society.

BULLSHIT


Libertarianism ONLY promises to protect and defend your right to Life, Liberty, Property and to pursue Happiness


We Do NOT promise

1- to feed you

2- to provide free health insurance

3- to clothe you

4- to quench your thirst

5- free education

6- we REJECT the welfare/warfare police state


Americans are narcotized - but the Libertarian Party MUST NOT succumb to clamors demanding the it become electable.


So if you like the status quo then vote DEMOPUBLICAN.


.

[kahless]

BULLSHIT
Libertarianism ONLY promises to protect and defend your right to Life, Liberty, Property and to pursue Happiness
We Do NOT promise

1- to feed you

2- to provide free health insurance

3- to clothe you

4- to quench your thirst

5- free education

6- we REJECT the welfare/warfare police state


Americans are narcotized - but the Libertarian Party MUST NOT succumb to clamors demanding the it become electable.


So if you like the status quo then vote DEMOPUBLICAN.


Number 8 as provided by example above.

8. libertarians have a reputation for the inability to make a logical coherent argument to promote their beliefs but rather attack those that question their ideology.

In my case, I was not even attacking libertarianism but rather describing why I believe the average person is not buying into it. Yet look at the Contumacious reply.

[angelatc]

Libertarian ideology is radical for those that want to control other peoples lives.

It is also radical to those who have been conditioned for literally their entire lives that control is necessary.

On Facebook, someone libertarian posted a mini-rant about a supermarket that had marked a couple of parking spaces as "For Customers With Special Needs." He was pissed because he interpreted the sign to mean developmentally challenged individuals and he didn't think the store should be giving them special favors. Another commenter pondered the meaning from the question of definition, meaning how should the phrase be legally defined? Should there be penalties for parking there if your needs were not special enough?

My comment was that this was actually a very libertarian solution, as well as an example of a store just doing a nice thing. If you have a trunk full of cans to return, park there. If you have 4 little kids, park there. If your arthritis is acting up, park there. You decide if you should take that space away from someone else who might appreciate it more.

I know it's a trite example, but I used it to illustrate we aren't dealing with logic. We are dealing with an ingrained culture.

[Ronin Truth]

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein

[Cabal]

Of course an ideology of substance, integrity, and principles is going to fail at politics. Substance, integrity, and principles are liabilities in politics.

It doesn't help that the label gets watered down by "LINO" types who probably don't have a single libertarian bone in their body, and "libertarian-leaning" nonsense. Idk wtf that is even supposed to mean, "libertarian-leaning."

[Contumacious]

Number 8 as provided by example above.

8. libertarians have a reputation for the inability to make a logical coherent argument to promote their beliefs but rather attack those that question their ideology.

In my case, I was not even attacking libertarianism but rather describing why I believe the average person is not buying into it. Yet look at the Contumacious reply.


Parasites, socialists, fascists, state supremacists do not understand logical coherent arguments.


If you need a dissertation on the reason freedom is good for you then you are narcotized.


.

[kahless]

Parasites, socialists, fascists, state supremacists do not understand logical coherent arguments.

If you need a dissertation on the reason freedom is good for you then you are narcotized.



Do you even realize you are posting in a forum of libertarians or close to it. Did you even bother to read what the thread title is and what I actually posted.

My post was an opinion why the masses are not sold on libertarian beliefs, on topic with "Why Libertarians are Failing at Politics". With each of my points I describe why you are not winning any converts. These are people that have had no exposure to libertarian beliefs, therefore have know idea how things could possibly work without big government.

You keep making the case for me with each of your replies. Until you and libertarians start to behave respectfully in educating the masses on libertarian beliefs and how things possibly can work without government, no one is going to listen to you. You will therefore continue to be controlled by people that demand the state in our lives.

[idiom]

20% of the American economy is the Medical System. It should be ~4% like similar countries.

As a Doctor this problem should be nearly the only thing Rand talks about, "Vote Rand Paul, lower medical costs by 80%".

It affects every American. It is an enormous threat to the security of each American.

Its a strongly libertarian issue. But instead we hear nuanced gobbedly gook about the Middle East all day long.

[LibertyEagle]

Parasites, socialists, fascists, state supremacists do not understand logical coherent arguments.


If you need a dissertation on the reason freedom is good for you then you are narcotized.
.

lol. You're the one who doesn't believe in borders. So, I wouldn't be accusing anyone of not understanding logic.

[LibertyEagle]

20% of the American economy is the Medical System. It should be ~4% like similar countries.

As a Doctor this problem should be nearly the only thing Rand talks about, "Vote Rand Paul, lower medical costs by 80%".

It affects every American. It is an enormous threat to the security of each American.

Its a strongly libertarian issue. But instead we hear nuanced gobbedly gook about the Middle East all day long.

Perhaps he isn't saying that, because there would be no way for him to deliver it.

[pcosmar]

Why Libertarians are Failing at Politics

Because the political system is wholly corrupt,, and incompatible with libertarian principals.

but mostly because the vast majority of folks are authoritarians.

[Contumacious]

lol. You're the one who doesn't believe in borders. So, I wouldn't be accusing anyone of not understanding logic.

PRIOR TO 1965 WE HAD OPEN BORDERS WITH CANADA AND MEXICO. THERE WAS NEVER A PROBLEM. TELL YOUR IDOLS IN DC TO ABOLISH THE WELFARE STATE.


.

[LibertyEagle]

PRIOR TO 1965 WE HAD OPEN BORDERS WITH CANADA AND MEXICO. THERE WAS NEVER A PROBLEM. TELL YOUR IDOLS IN DC TO ABOLISH THE WELFARE STATE.



They aren't my idols, zippy. I think everyone here wants the welfare state to go away. Well, except those who want the government to force the taxpayers to pay for their college loans.

After that gets done, we can talk. Until then, doing what you are suggesting is suicide. No thanks.

[kahless]

Yelling will not change history Contumacious. Maybe it is time for you to do a little research before posting. Search Google for topics like "Operation Wetback" and Mexico mass deportations (they occurred before Operation Wetback during the Great Depression through to the Second World War).

[fisharmor]

Until then, doing what you are suggesting is suicide. No thanks.

Suicide for whom? The federal government?

Oh, crap! I never realized that before! If we don't do something we find abhorrent with something we find abhorrent, it might cease to exist!

Well, you finally convinced me, LE.

[Ronin Truth]

The very best libertarians aren't failing at politics. Hell, they aren't even playing the idiotic statist's game.

[Contumacious]

Yelling will not change history Contumacious. Maybe it is time for you to do a little research before posting. Search Google for topics like "Operation Wetback" and Mexico mass deportations (they occurred before Operation Wetback during the Great Depression through to the Second World War).

OPERATION WETBACK ORIGINATED IN MEXICO.


THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT WANTED TO FORCE THE MEXICANS TO GO BACK.

BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


.

[Zippyjuan]

Caps lock stuck?

[heavenlyboy34]

Number 8 as provided by example above.

8. libertarians have a reputation for the inability to make a logical coherent argument to promote their beliefs but rather attack those that question their ideology.

In my case, I was not even attacking libertarianism but rather describing why I believe the average person is not buying into it. Yet look at the Contumacious reply.

Quite the contrary in my experience. Competent libertarians are well versed in both libertarian and non-libertarian philosophy, argumentation, etc. If you've only talked to some kids on the interwebz or LP guys, you're talking mostly to n00bs and getting an invalid sample.

[idiom]

Perhaps he isn't saying that, because there would be no way for him to deliver it.

His dad could have delivered it.

[H. E. Panqui]

kahless asserts: Fixation over the legalization of marijuana over everything else. Appearing as single issue young and druggie voters.

:eek:

...first, honest, knowledgeable 'libertarians' don't want ?your stinking republicrats to 'legalize' :rolleyes: 'drugs'...they want ?your stinking republicrats to acknowledge that what plants people grow and use, what people self-medicate with, ingest, etc., falls into the HUGE realm of individual freedom and personal responsibility...and that it's ?your stinking republicrat prohibitionist peckerheads who have truly 'fixated' on using 'the law' to enforce their stinking stoooooooooooooooooooooooopid republicrat preferences...'libertarians' want these hideous, destructive laws repealed...not some hazy, gd fool 'legalization'...

....i recently had a conversation with an old tea bag republican fool who spoke in terms similar to you when he said, "you libertarians are always trying to push your drug agenda on people"...

:rolleyes:

....this from a goddamned republican fool who wants government/taxes used to push his stinking drug war agenda even as he works his blowhole complaining about 'big bad government'!!... :mad:goddamned. republicrat. fools.

[acptulsa]

we eat our own.

Hank E. Panqui is banned too? And still Carless and Swordshyll are allowed to impugn anyone at will with impunity?

[euphemia]

What is badly needed is 1) leadership 2) an organized party with a clear agenda and strong organization.

[timosman]

What is badly needed is 1) leadership 2) an organized party with a clear agenda and strong organization.

You are not the only one who knows about it and that's why you will never get it. :cool:

[euphemia]

You are not the only one who knows about it and that's why you will never get it. :cool:

This makes no sense at all.

[timosman]

This makes no sense at all.

Leadership is despised in politics. Anybody with strong leadership skills is compared to Hitler. :D

[acptulsa]

This makes no sense at all.

Of course it does. It's one of the few things he has posted on this forum which does make perfect sense.

You are underestimating the enemy. You are also overlooking the thing they have and we don't, without which leadership and organization are meaningless--money to buy air time, commercials, pundits and media outlets.

[euphemia]

The lack of a clear vision is the final nail in the coffin. If we could pick 5 things we can all agree on and go to work on those five things, we might be able to get people to realize we have an intelligent group that knows how to get things done.

Pick something and get it done.

[acptulsa]

The lack of a clear vision is the final nail in the coffin. If we could pick 5 things we can all agree on and go to work on those five things, we might be able to get people to realize we have an intelligent group that knows how to get things done.

Pick something and get it done.

In 2008 and 2012 we picked one thing. We set out to demonstrate to the American people that they can tell the good primary candidates by seeing who the MSM decides to black out and ignore. In 2016 the public decided the ones the MSM talk about 24/7 on 365 channels at once, but talks mean and nasty about, must be on our side.

Evil is relentless. It never sleeps. Or if it does, it doesn't matter, because it can afford to hire three shifts of hungry workers to do its dirty work.


https://youtube.com/watch?v=U7XVcqZodAM

[dean.engelhardt]

The rise of the LP will probably happen when something really bad happens. If both parties stand together to devalue the US dollar to control the national debt, broke and hungry people might start looking for real answers.

Who am I kidding...the Dems will blame the Republican. The Republicans will blame the Dems. They will both raise tons of money from supporters to blame each other. Things will go to sheet and I'll be looking to migrate somewhere where freedom is not defined by having two choices of who to vote for.

[euphemia]

In 2008 and 2012 we picked one thing. We set out to demonstrate to the American people that they can tell the good primary candidates by seeing who the MSM decides to black out and ignore. In 2016 the public decided the ones the MSM talk about 24/7 on 365 channels at once, but talks mean and nasty about, must be on our side.

Evil is relentless. It never sleeps. Or if it does, it doesn't matter, because it can afford to hire three shifts of hungry workers to do its dirty work.

If you mean you all proved how to fail, then that was a very good example. Using a political campaign to show he media is stupid and biased is not a real strong goal that mobilizes people to support the movement.

[Ender]

If you mean you all proved how to fail, then that was a very good example. Using a political campaign to show he media is stupid and biased is not a real strong goal that mobilizes people to support the movement.

Disagree. Ron Paul becoming He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was a major factor in my understanding the prison we are all in.

This can be a real learning tool, when one awakes from The Matrix.

Real Libertarianism is the rule of self-ownership & self-governance. As an individual, I should be able to do whatever I please, as long as I am not forcing it on others.

[nobody's_hero]

Playing the victim card is not an endearing quality. Prepare to be pissed off:

In terms of behavior, these days I can hardly tell the difference between the libertarians and say, BLM, when it comes to the "victim Olympics." If you believe our rights are under attack, you're right. But moping around with a bottle pressed against your head 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, is not exactly inspiring a groundswell of support. People don't want to line up behind victims, they want to line up behind fighters. [Libertarians have an additional dilemma in that it goes against their nature to "lead" people, but you're gonna have to get over that sh*t, quick.]

I said in 2016 that if you want to win, start taking notes from Trump. Adopt his tactics, but not his principles. Yes, even the alpha male bulls***. Once you have the attention of the populists (and yes, you're gonna need those people, so it might behoove you to stop hating on them based off of some nutcase in Europe last century using populism for evil and therefore the concept is somehow forever tainted, forever and ever, amen) by distinguishing yourself not as a victim, but a victor, you can pretty much lead people wherever you want to, for better or worse.

[acptulsa]

Disagree. Ron Paul becoming He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was a major factor in my understanding the prison we are all in.

This can be a real learning tool, when one awakes from The Matrix.

Real Libertarianism is the rule of self-ownership & self-governance. As an individual, I should be able to do whatever I please, as long as I am not forcing it on others.

You aren't in denial. Saying libertarians failed Ron Paul is a form of denying that humans are herd animals and easily led to slaughter. It isn't their fault they keep voting themselves into deeper tyranny; it must be our fault for being lousy salesmen...


Playing the victim card is not an endearing quality. Prepare to be pissed off:

In terms of behavior, these days I can hardly tell the difference between the libertarians and say, BLM, when it comes to the "victim Olympics." If you believe our rights are under attack, you're right. But moping around with a bottle pressed against your head 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, is not exactly inspiring a groundswell of support. People don't want to line up behind victims, they want to line up behind fighters. [Libertarians have an additional dilemma in that it goes against their nature to "lead" people, but you're gonna have to get over that sh*t, quick.]

I said in 2016 that if you want to win, start taking notes from Trump. Adopt his tactics, but not his principles. Yes, even the alpha male bulls***. Once you have the attention of the populists (and yes, you're gonna need those people) by distinguishing yourself not as a victim, but a victor, you can pretty much lead them wherever you want to, for better or worse.

You are right. You are absolutely, positively right. And yet, do we have no rational reason to be discouraged from time to time?

The big question in my mind, and the one I would lionize you for answering in a viable manner is, a major part of Trump's tactics was getting incessant publicity from the MSM. How do we execute that tactic without adopting his principles? And if we cannot, why would we press forward without first pausing to find a path around that obstacle?

[nobody's_hero]

You aren't in denial. Saying libertarians failed Ron Paul is a form of denying that humans are herd animals and easily led to slaughter. It isn't their fault they keep voting themselves into deeper tyranny; it must be our fault for being lousy salesmen...



You are right. You are absolutely, positively right. And yet, do we have no rational reason to be discouraged from time to time?

The big question in my mind, and the one I would lionize you for answering in a viable manner is, a major part of Trump's tactics was getting incessant publicity from the MSM. How do we execute that tactic without adopting his principles? And if we cannot, why would we press forward without first pausing to find a path around that obstacle?


I wish I could. LOL. I believe I know what the problem is, but how to solve it? Are there any alpha male, egotistical, reality show -type libertarians out there? Apparently that's what it takes to win the presidency these days. (Rinse the grime off later)

[acptulsa]

I wish I could. LOL. I believe I know what the problem is, but how to solve it? Are there any alpha male, egotistical, reality show -type libertarians out there? Apparently that's what it takes to win the presidency these days. (Rinse the grime off later)

Yeah, and in 2012 we were saying Ron Paul was too much of that and we were hoping Rand would take our principles more mainstream. We paved the path for Trump but retreated to convention as soon as the cement we poured was ready.

I personally took libertarians to task for abandoning their horse for the one that won, and refusing to see the signs that he wasn't what they hoped he was. And I still do, though the only ones still clinging to that hope are the shills and the fools. But I don't believe libertarians deserve to be beaten up, or will benefit from beating ourselves up, for not prevailing against overwhelming resources and overwhelming odds.

I guarantee the enemy isn't wasting time and effort continuing to fight the last battle. They're looking for a way to win the next one.

[euphemia]

Disagree. Ron Paul becoming He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was a major factor in my understanding the prison we are all in.

This can be a real learning tool, when one awakes from The Matrix.

Real Libertarianism is the rule of self-ownership & self-governance. As an individual, I should be able to do whatever I please, as long as I am not forcing it on others.

And how is that working for you?

[acptulsa]

And how is that working for you?

About as well as being the tyrannical majority and forcing bad policies down everyone's throats is working for you all.

The major difference is you all, like Charlie Sheen, can convince yourselves that shooting all of us in the foot is winning.

[Swordsmyth]

Playing the victim card is not an endearing quality. Prepare to be pissed off:

In terms of behavior, these days I can hardly tell the difference between the libertarians and say, BLM, when it comes to the "victim Olympics." If you believe our rights are under attack, you're right. But moping around with a bottle pressed against your head 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, is not exactly inspiring a groundswell of support. People don't want to line up behind victims, they want to line up behind fighters. [Libertarians have an additional dilemma in that it goes against their nature to "lead" people, but you're gonna have to get over that sh*t, quick.]

I said in 2016 that if you want to win, start taking notes from Trump. Adopt his tactics, but not his principles. Yes, even the alpha male bulls***. Once you have the attention of the populists (and yes, you're gonna need those people, so it might behoove you to stop hating on them based off of some nutcase in Europe last century using populism for evil and therefore the concept is somehow forever tainted, forever and ever, amen) by distinguishing yourself not as a victim, but a victor, you can pretty much lead people wherever you want to, for better or worse.

^^^THIS^^^

[fisharmor]

Cheezus, you guys are still talking about "the movement"?
Rand Paul slit the throat of "the movement" on national TV six years ago when he endorsed Flip Flop Romney.

I mean literally the moment he did that, every single grassroots effort died. Ron Paul supporters didn't turn into **********s overnight: they had nothing to do for four years and got acclimated slowly.

My political life, along with that of so many other libertarians, involves nothing more than pointing and laughing at abject fools doing and saying abjectly foolish things. I hate to say it, but we've kept ourselves from doing it to "the movement" for a long, long time now, but maybe that's what's needed to snap you out of this "it's still 2011, all we need is X" mentality.

Edit: really, we're blanking out "T r u m p a n z e e s"?

[Swordsmyth]

Cheezus, you guys are still talking about "the movement"?
Rand Paul slit the throat of "the movement" on national TV six years ago when he endorsed Flip Flop Romney.

I mean literally the moment he did that, every single grassroots effort died. Ron Paul supporters didn't turn into **********s overnight: they had nothing to do for four years and got acclimated slowly.

My political life, along with that of so many other libertarians, involves nothing more than pointing and laughing at abject fools doing and saying abjectly foolish things. I hate to say it, but we've kept ourselves from doing it to "the movement" for a long, long time now, but maybe that's what's needed to snap you out of this "it's still 2011, all we need is X" mentality.

Edit: really, we're blanking out "T r u m p a n z e e s"?
People like you killed the movement to whatever extent it is dead.
Rand is still fighting for liberty.

[acptulsa]

People like you killed the movement to whatever extent it is dead.
Rand is still fighting for liberty.

Oh, just what we need--people who are admittedly not libertarian and only came here during the Great Trump Hijacking to spam us pointing fingers and apportioning blame.

You neither saw enough of nor invested enough in the movement to be credible in the role of judge.

[Swordsmyth]

Oh, just what we need--people who are admittedly not libertarian and only came here during the Great Trump Hijacking to spam us pointing fingers and apportioning blame.

You neither saw enough of nor invested enough in the movement to be credible in the role of judge.
I was a Ron Paul fan before you ever heard of him and it is the unreasonable purists like fishy and you who have damaged the movement, we are not the majority or even close to it and it will be a very long time before we are if we ever are, we must work with others who share some of our goals even if that includes things like Rand's endorsement of Romney.

[acptulsa]

I was a Ron Paul fan before you ever heard of him...

You have no idea when I heard of him, which means you're talking out of your ass again. Not that it's any of your business, but long before I voted for him in two primaries, I voted for him in a general election. Do you have enough fingers and toes to do that math? Are you even half old enough to make the same claim (you don't act it)?


...and it is the unreasonable purists like fishy and you who have damaged the movement, we are not the majority or even close to it and it will be a very long time before we are if we ever are, we must work with others who share some of our goals even if that includes things like Rand's endorsement of Romney.

Your research skills are poor. There is more than enough evidence around this forum to prove that fisharmor and I are not of the same ideological stripe, don't see eye to eye on the damaging effects if endorsements, and who is worth working with.

It's only your collectivist-adversarial mindset that lumps us together; we really don't have all that much in common except a level of diplomacy and comity you seem unable to achieve.

[Swordsmyth]

You have no idea when I heard of him, which means you're talking out of your ass again. Not that it's any of your business, but long before I voted for him in two primaries, I voted for him in a general election. Do you have enough fingers and toes to do that math? Are you even half old enough to make the same claim (you don't act it)?
Kinda like how you did to me first?




Your research skills are poor. There is more than enough evidence around this forum to prove that fisharmor and I are not of the same ideological stripe, don't see eye to eye on the damaging effects if endorsements, and who is worth working with.

It's only your collectivist-adversarial mindset that lumps us together; we really don't have all that much in common except a level of diplomacy and comity you seem unable to achieve.
You are two different brands of purist who both try to drive away anyone who disagrees with you at all, you are both examples of what is wrong with the movement.

[acptulsa]

Kinda like how you did to me first?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I can see this is an admission that you were indeed talking out of your ass.


You are two different brands of purist who both try to drive away anyone who disagrees with you at all, you are both examples of what is wrong with the movement.

Nobody empties the room faster than the collaborators. Nobody points more fingers than the collaborators, either.

[Danke]

I wish I could. LOL. I believe I know what the problem is, but how to solve it? Are there any alpha male, egotistical, reality show -type libertarians out there? Apparently that's what it takes to win the presidency these days. (Rinse the grime off later)

Alex Jones.

[idiom]

Where are all the Libertarian small town mayors? City Councillors? State assembly?

Surely it would work on a small scale and where ever those policies were implemented would undergo explosive growth and prosperity that would pull state-wide and then nationwide attention?

Or does libertarianism only work when implemented top down in a fantasy dictatorship?

[Swordsmyth]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I can see this is an admission that you were indeed talking out of your ass.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by acptulsa http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6704948#post6704948)

You neither saw enough of nor invested enough in the movement to be credible in the role of judge.

I just reflected your behavior back at you.
You neither saw enough of nor invested enough in the movement to be credible in the role of judge.





Nobody empties the room faster than the collaborators. Nobody points more fingers than the collaborators, either.
Are you trying to provide evidence for the theory that you are a Demoncrat operative? Because that is what you are doing.
You empty the room faster than anyone else around here and you point more fingers than anyone else.

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are collaborators, you are proving my point that YOU are the problem.

[Swordsmyth]

Where are all the Libertarian small town mayors? City Councillors? State assembly?

Surely it would work on a small scale and where ever those policies were implemented would undergo explosive growth and prosperity that would pull state-wide and then nationwide attention?

Or does libertarianism only work when implemented top down in a fantasy dictatorship?
Liberty works at any level but most power is concentrated higher up, so that is where the biggest effect is felt.

Mostly the problem is that we are a tiny minority, that is why we need to work with those who share some of our goals instead of demanding "all or nothing".

[idiom]

Liberty works at any level but most power is concentrated higher up, so that is where the biggest effect is felt.

Mostly the problem is that we are a tiny minority, that is why we need to work with those who share some of our goals instead of demanding "all or nothing".

So start small, with a town, show the theory works, then show it with a state. Then people will take it seriously on a national level.

[euphemia]

Where are all the Libertarian small town mayors? City Councillors? State assembly?

Surely it would work on a small scale and where ever those policies were implemented would undergo explosive growth and prosperity that would pull state-wide and then nationwide attention?

Or does libertarianism only work when implemented top down in a fantasy dictatorship?

Ron Paul’s brand of libertarianism is based on US Constitutional law The Constitution puts strict limits on the federal government and punts a lot of responsibility to the states. Without so much federal intervention perhaps the balance would be restored so states and communities could be freed up to manage their own affairs.

[tfurrh]

I think Democrats have an ideology.
I think Libertarians have an ideology.
I have no idea what ideology Republicans go by.... It really bugs me.

I know I'm being hyperbolic....but c'mon

[Anti Federalist]

Or does libertarianism only work when implemented top down in a fantasy dictatorship?

Pretty much this, and it is this that is the primary contradiction of libertarianism of any stripe.

People hate, and do not want, liberty and will actively fight you from achieving it.

The few times in history where political and personal liberty has flourished, has been those occasions where a dedicated and tiny minority or benevolent dictator, dragged, with force, the rest of idiot humanity along with them toward freedom.

Was true for Moses, and is still just as true today.

[Ender]

Ron Paul’s brand of libertarianism is based on US Constitutional law The Constitution puts strict limits on the federal government and punts a lot of responsibility to the states. Without so much federal intervention perhaps the balance would be restored so states and communities could be freed up to manage their own affairs.

The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup. The Articles of Confederation were much freer but Hamilton and other "elites" of his day did not want that. They wanted a strong central government to make the elite richer and more powerful.

Seems to have worked beautifully.

[Ender]

I was a Ron Paul fan before you ever heard of him and it is the unreasonable purists like fishy and you who have damaged the movement, we are not the majority or even close to it and it will be a very long time before we are if we ever are, we must work with others who share some of our goals even if that includes things like Rand's endorsement of Romney.

EXCUSE ME? The "purists" damaged the movement?

The Liberty movement has been damaged by Trumpeteers squawking here for the past 3+ years and driving solid liberty-lovers away. This place used to be a haven for dialog and learning until all the name-calling & innuendoes started against anyone who questioned Trump.

[Swordsmyth]

EXCUSE ME? The "purists" damaged the movement?

The Liberty movement has been damaged by Trumpeteers squawking here for the past 3+ years and driving solid liberty-lovers away. This place used to be a haven for dialog and learning until all the name-calling & innuendoes started against anyone who questioned Trump.
LOL

[Ender]

LOL

Says the guy who showed during the Trump-takeover, has almost 25,000 posts & LOVES him some name-calling and insults.
:seenoevil::hearnoevil::speaknoevil:

[Swordsmyth]

Says the guy who showed during the Trump-takeover, has almost 25,000 posts & LOVES him some name-calling and insults.
:seenoevil::hearnoevil::speaknoevil:
Even I can see who damaged the movement just from my experiences here and a few old threads I have looked at, this place used to be even more diverse until the purists decided that even Rand wasn't good enough and did their best to drive away anyone who had a few different opinions on how to obtain and secure liberty or who wanted to take the best available option if perfection wasn't available.

[acptulsa]

Says the guy who showed during the Trump-takeover, has almost 25,000 posts & LOVES him some name-calling and insults.
:seenoevil::hearnoevil::speaknoevil:

The only defense for the indefensible is a good offense.

I attribute the fact that he accuses everyone if his own crimes to a lack of imagination.

[Zippyjuan]

Even I can see who damaged the movement just from my experiences here and a few old threads I have looked at, this place used to be even more diverse until the purists decided that even Rand wasn't good enough and did their best to drive away anyone who had a few different opinions on how to obtain and secure liberty or who wanted to take the best available option if perfection wasn't available.

Glad you are not a purist and welcome people with diverse opinions.

[Swordsmyth]

The only defense for the indefensible is a good offense.

I attribute the fact that he accuses everyone if his own crimes to a lack of imagination.

That's certainly the tactic you use.

[Swordsmyth]

Glad you are not a purist and welcome people with diverse opinions.
Diversity has limits, your anti-liberty opinions are beyond them.

[acptulsa]

That's certainly the tactic you use.

See what I mean?

Hey, Swordshyll. Libertarian candidates did one hell of a lot better than trumpcuck candidates yesterday. Care to tell us why?

[Zippyjuan]

Diversity has limits, your anti-liberty opinions are beyond them.

Yep, don't mind a little diversity at all. One of the more tolerant people I know.

[Swordsmyth]

See what I mean?

Hey, Swordshyll. Libertarian candidates did one hell of a lot better than trumpcuck candidates yesterday. Care to tell us why?
Just which candidates are you referring to? And why would you think I don't prefer libertarian-Republicans?

[Swordsmyth]

Yep, don't mind a little diversity at all. One of the more tolerant people I know.
Go polish your red bars.

[r3volution 3.0]

Why Libertarians Are Failing At Politics

Allow me to dispel the mystery; liberty isn't popular (never has been, never will be).

But it's possible to nudge things in the right direction from time to time, even if it's quite hopeless in the long run.

That's where we are right now; in a fairly good position to nudge.

[Anti Globalist]

I wish I could. LOL. I believe I know what the problem is, but how to solve it? Are there any alpha male, egotistical, reality show -type libertarians out there? Apparently that's what it takes to win the presidency these days. (Rinse the grime off later)
Pretty much this. I'm not a Trump supporter. He's not that much of a liberty lover and I don't think he cares about the constitution as much as he says he does, but his status as an alpha male has pretty much made me realize that the only way our movement and this country will go forward is if we start running people with alpha male personalities that legitimately believe in freedom and liberty. They don't have to necessarily be alpha males in the same vain as Trump (although if they are I won't be against it) but thats the only way I can see things going in our favor.

[acptulsa]

...but his status as an alpha male has pretty much made me realize that the only way our movement and this country will go forward is if we start running people with alpha male personalities that legitimately believe in freedom and liberty.

Ron Paul himself is an interesting case. Physically he's a dweeb. By temperament he's a gentleman. Get him on the subject of liberty, however, and he's a bulldog.

I don't believe Trump is the perfect personality. He only got six percent in the early primaries (and Republicans fall in line after the first three like good little lemmings). Most of his vote in the general came with noses held. He wasn't appealing, Clinton was frightening. But a certain amount of stubbornness must be exhibited to get elected. Without that, weakness is assumed.

[Swordsmyth]

Pretty much this. I'm not a Trump supporter. He's not that much of a liberty lover and I don't think he cares about the constitution as much as he says he does, but his status as an alpha male has pretty much made me realize that the only way our movement and this country will go forward is if we start running people with alpha male personalities that legitimately believe in freedom and liberty. They don't have to necessarily be alpha males in the same vain as Trump (although if they are I won't be against it) but thats the only way I can see things going in our favor.
The sheeple follow strength, Ron actually projected more strength than many liberty candidates but not enough, we need candidates that display an eagerness to fight the enemy on every level.

The sheeple do not seek out freedom on their own, they don't seek much of anything on their own but they can be led to freedom if we can give them a strong enough leader.

[fisharmor]

Where are all the Libertarian small town mayors? City Councillors? State assembly?

Surely it would work on a small scale and where ever those policies were implemented would undergo explosive growth and prosperity that would pull state-wide and then nationwide attention?

Or does libertarianism only work when implemented top down in a fantasy dictatorship?

See, this is the exact thing I am talking about. This sort of grassroots thing was absolutely happening in 2012. There were entire state conventions that were nearly getting taken over in liberty movement coups. There were all sorts of people that were inspired to run for dog catcher elections.
Brushfires were getting lit. The system wasn't burning down, but that sort of thing was absolutely happening.

Rand made the endorsement, and IT ALL VANISHED. IMMEDIATELY.

I'm not sure how much more clear it could be. Ron retired and Rand sent a clear signal to the grassroots that he was not his father's successor.

Ron is still doing liberty reports and that's all well and good, but there is no one righteous man in Sodom anymore, nobody to convince us there is anything worth fighting for.

Then we have you ridiculous Trump supporters... I'm not being a purist: if you support Trump you never understood what was going on. Trump fans are like the Mormons of the liberty movement at this point. Trump supporters can talk all they want but the bulk of us reject their credentials.

I know ACP and I aren't on the same page because he still believes in the state. But you know what... I've seen at least half a dozen people from this site jump in that pool since 2012 who weren't anarchists before, and are now. They all recognized there's nothing more to do.

Rand has never said anything along the lines of "eliminate these five cabinet level departments immediately", "bring them all home NOW", or "just stop the war on drugs". This isn't purism on my part. He is simply not in the same category.

If someone comes along with Ron's credentials and a thirty year voting record to back it up, maybe the movement can live again. But don't tell me that the man who just voted in the fucking author of the fucking PATRIOT act as a supreme court justice is fighting for my liberty. Rand had his chance to stand for something, and he blew it, and murdered the movement in the process. Face it, and maybe we can start with someone else.

[RJ Liberty]

So start small, with a town, show the theory works, then show it with a state. Then people will take it seriously on a national level.

There are 186 Libertarians (https://www.lp.org/elected-officials-2/) in office in the US.

[Swordsmyth]

See, this is the exact thing I am talking about. This sort of grassroots thing was absolutely happening in 2012. There were entire state conventions that were nearly getting taken over in liberty movement coups. There were all sorts of people that were inspired to run for dog catcher elections.
Brushfires were getting lit. The system wasn't burning down, but that sort of thing was absolutely happening.

Rand made the endorsement, and IT ALL VANISHED. IMMEDIATELY.

I'm not sure how much more clear it could be. Ron retired and Rand sent a clear signal to the grassroots that he was not his father's successor.

Ron is still doing liberty reports and that's all well and good, but there is no one righteous man in Sodom anymore, nobody to convince us there is anything worth fighting for.

Then we have you ridiculous Trump supporters... I'm not being a purist: if you support Trump you never understood what was going on. Trump fans are like the Mormons of the liberty movement at this point. Trump supporters can talk all they want but the bulk of us reject their credentials.

I know ACP and I aren't on the same page because he still believes in the state. But you know what... I've seen at least half a dozen people from this site jump in that pool since 2012 who weren't anarchists before, and are now. They all recognized there's nothing more to do.

Rand has never said anything along the lines of "eliminate these five cabinet level departments immediately", "bring them all home NOW", or "just stop the war on drugs". This isn't purism on my part. He is simply not in the same category.

If someone comes along with Ron's credentials and a thirty year voting record to back it up, maybe the movement can live again. But don't tell me that the man who just voted in the $#@!ing author of the $#@!ing PATRIOT act as a supreme court justice is fighting for my liberty. Rand had his chance to stand for something, and he blew it, and murdered the movement in the process. Face it, and maybe we can start with someone else.
What else happened about the same time as Rand's Romney endorsement? The Convention cheating.
That is what put a waterline hole in the movement, people decided it wasn't worth bucking the establishment just when their desperation showed we were close to winning, then the Rand haters set off scuttling charges from the inside.

[fisharmor]

What else happened about the same time as Rand's Romney endorsement? The Convention cheating.
That is what put a waterline hole in the movement, people decided it wasn't worth bucking the establishment just when their desperation showed we were close to winning, then the Rand haters set off scuttling charges from the inside.

Yeah here's the problem. I don't hate Rand. I don't hate Trump or Nancy Pelosi or Lindsey Graham either.
I have opinions on how likely any of them is to support measures I agree with, and there's a scale that goes from "never" all the way to "occasionally".
This is an objective analysis on my part. I evaluate politicians - and that IS what Rand is, a politician - on the likelihood of their supporting liberty principles.
I don't evaluate how likely they are to accumulate political capital. I don't pay attention to how many inside friends they make with endorsements. I make judgments based on whether they are actually, in reality, sticking to their principles.

I notice you completely ignored that I pointed out that Rand voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and replaced that line of discussion with "Rand hater". I recognize this as a political move on your part. I am simply not on that wavelength. That vote means something to me, even if it doesn't mean anything to you. It means that Rand actively voted to confirm the author of the PATRIOT act as a supreme court justice.

What you call "purism", I call having a fucking brain. You can't confirm the author of the PATRIOT act to the supreme court and expect people are going to assume you're "fighting for liberty". They are mutually exclusive actions. You guys have had a good six year run with this notion that Rand was some sort of covert operative, but you've been spending your time supporting a politician doing politician things. The same old shit, after we had a glimpse of something else.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah here's the problem. I don't hate Rand. I don't hate Trump or Nancy Pelosi or Lindsey Graham either.
I have opinions on how likely any of them is to support measures I agree with, and there's a scale that goes from "never" all the way to "occasionally".
This is an objective analysis on my part. I evaluate politicians - and that IS what Rand is, a politician - on the likelihood of their supporting liberty principles.
I don't evaluate how likely they are to accumulate political capital. I don't pay attention to how many inside friends they make with endorsements. I make judgments based on whether they are actually, in reality, sticking to their principles.

I notice you completely ignored that I pointed out that Rand voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and replaced that line of discussion with "Rand hater". I recognize this as a political move on your part. I am simply not on that wavelength. That vote means something to me, even if it doesn't mean anything to you. It means that Rand actively voted to confirm the author of the PATRIOT act as a supreme court justice.

What you call "purism", I call having a $#@!ing brain. You can't confirm the author of the PATRIOT act to the supreme court and expect people are going to assume you're "fighting for liberty". They are mutually exclusive actions. You guys have had a good six year run with this notion that Rand was some sort of covert operative, but you've been spending your time supporting a politician doing politician things. The same old $#@!, after we had a glimpse of something else.
I and others already dealt with the Kavanaugh issue at the time, Rand couldn't make Trump pick anyone better and Kavanaugh was better than Kennedy or most of the others on Trump's list so Rand made the best move he could and voted to confirm.

Rand is getting more actually accomplished as a Senator than Ron ever did in the House BECAUSE he plays politician, Ron's greatest accomplishment was the creation of the movement and he expected the movement to trust his son or carry on on their own if they couldn't bring themselves to, the movement failed to do either, it gave up just because the job was hard and those with power don't hand it over nicely when asked and it rejected Rand for being a different kind of liberty warrior than his father.

Ron did his job and Rand is doing his but the movement let them down.

[Pauls' Revere]

This article boils down to little more than "libertarians are not winning elections because their ideas are not popular." No kidding. The more important question is why? The article touches on the fact that people are ever more dependent on government programs, but there is more to it than that. The libertarian position is based on reason and the vast majority of people simply are not persuaded by reason, at least not to the extent that they develop a reasoned view of policy and vote on it. Instead, the majority of people are persuaded by, and vote on, emotion. The candidate who most effectively manipulates the fear, jealousy, resentment, hatred, guilt, trust, attraction, etc. of the voters wins. Reason doesn't win so libertarians don't win.

Yes, we are no longer in the age of reason. Probably left it years ago. We are in the age of the "Empath" where feelings and emotions guide our decision making processes. Perhaps its because we have handed over the reason and logic aspects to the tech we use and what were left with are emotions. That is to say, something a iphone or laptop cannot have, and subconsciously it defines us as human and therefore better than a machine.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, we are no longer in the age of reason. Probably left it years ago. We are in the age of the "Empath" where feelings and emotions guide our decision making processes. Perhaps its because we have handed over the reason and logic aspects to the tech we use and what were left with are emotions. That is to say, something a iphone or laptop cannot have, and subconsciously it defines us as human and therefore better than a machine.
Perhaps, but whatever the cause we must adapt and learn to lead the sheeple by their emotions to guide them to liberty.

[Pauls' Revere]

Perhaps, but whatever the cause we must adapt and learn to lead the sheeple by their emotions to guide them to liberty.

Imagine Yoda saying this. "What emotion drives us to liberty? Perhaps is the same for steeple?"

[Swordsmyth]

Imagine Yoda saying this. "What emotion drives us to liberty? Perhaps is the same for steeple?"
Many different emotions can be used to guide people in any direction you want, we need to make a conscious effort to add them to our toolbox and we need to find candidates who have a natural talent for playing people's emotions like a musical instrument that also share our values.

[nobody's_hero]

Ron Paul himself is an interesting case. Physically he's a dweeb. By temperament he's a gentleman. Get him on the subject of liberty, however, and he's a bulldog.

I don't believe Trump is the perfect personality. He only got six percent in the early primaries (and Republicans fall in line after the first three like good little lemmings). Most of his vote in the general came with noses held. He wasn't appealing, Clinton was frightening. But a certain amount of stubbornness must be exhibited to get elected. Without that, weakness is assumed.

Ron Paul's best bulldog moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9n4nwxgaQg


The crowd erupted into applause. People like this s***. The mocking. The eccentricity. They don't really like the long, drawn-out complicated explanations. Libertarians are all too eager to get into that, and it's great that they really have that depth of understanding, but frankly it puts people to sleep.

Adopt his tactics, not his principles:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deQDLJhVuIg

[Pauls' Revere]

Many different emotions can be used to guide people in any direction you want, we need to make a conscious effort to add them to our toolbox and we need to find candidates who have a natural talent for playing people's emotions like a musical instrument that also share our values.

Massie, Amash, Paul?

[Swordsmyth]

Massie, Amash, Paul?
I haven't seen Amash or Massie perform on stage so I don't know about them but Rand seems to be learning from Trump, I hope he learns enough but we will still need to find more even if all three learn to do it.

[nikcers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_reboXoPeC8

[hbenthow]

What else happened about the same time as Rand's Romney endorsement? The Convention cheating.
That is what put a waterline hole in the movement, people decided it wasn't worth bucking the establishment just when their desperation showed we were close to winning, then the Rand haters set off scuttling charges from the inside.

Speaking for myself, it was indeed the convention cheating that most devastated me. Of course, I never gave up on the liberty movement (I still support it to this day), but that was the moment that made my morale plummet and made me question whether there was any hope. During the primaries, I felt like we were powerful, as if we represented the zeitgeist, the people of America finally rising up to break off their shackles. Then, the convention happened, and I felt like we were small, insignificant, and foolhardy. A tiny band of misfits that foolishly tried to storm the dragon's lair and got stomped on like ants for our trouble.

The moments that most solidified this feeling in my mind were the bus of Ron Paul delegates being driven in circles so they couldn't get into the convention, John Boehner reading "The ayes have it" off of the teleprompter, and a lone Paul delegate's words being viciously and intentionally drowned out by a chorus of Romney supporters chanting "USA! USA! USA!" as if to imply that a Paul presidency threatened the very existence of America. That last one in particular is still the moment that comes to my mind whenever I hear someone use that old expression about being kicked when one is down.

To be honest, I never saw Rand's endorsement of Romney as a big deal. It seemed to me like a necessary political decision for him that didn't make any difference except to keep him from getting kicked out of the party, as I realized that he was trying to fight for liberty in a more subtle way than his father. I knew that many were upset about it, but it was only a mild and temporary disappointment to me. Ron's career was that of an idealist, and it was in that capacity that he inspired and woke up many people and became the father of a movement. Rand's career is that of a realist, and while that makes him less inspiring, he has managed to get more done in terms of legislation than his father was ever able to. Ron is our General Washington, Rand is our Francis Marion.

Regarding Trump, my opinion is that he is not the ideal President, but has good points and may be helpful if he is followed by a more liberty-minded President. To paraphrase a line from The Dark Knight, he might not be the President that America deserves, but he could be the one it needs right now.

Starting with the 2012 election season, I focused mostly on the problems of the Republican Party. Neoconservatism, party corruption, etc. I almost ignored the Democrats. I knew they were terrible, but my opinion of them was that they were up-front and obvious about how terrible they are, so that they were less dangerous due to only idiots being able to fall for their nonsense; while neocons were far more dangerous due to being subtle and clever, and thus able to hoodwink more intelligent people. Sort of like how people who look you in the eye when they stab you aren't as bad as the ones that stab you in the back.

So my eyes were closed to just how rabidly Marxist and globalist the Democrats were, and the vast influence that their mindset was having on American society (especially the youth). At the time, I thought of political correctness as just an annoying and potentially dangerous form of censorship, and had no understanding of social Marxism or what it entailed. I also thought of illegal immigration as a minor issue that we could iron out once we finished with more pressing matters (like adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy and auditing the Fed).

It wasn't until Trump came along in 2016 that I fully realized that the radical left had adopted an unofficial policy of open borders for the purpose of encouraging mass migration regardless of the trustworthiness of immigrants (probably for the purpose of shifting national demographics in favor of people more likely to support radical leftism), were (whether intentionally or unintentionally) encouraging radical Islamic takeovers of western countries (look at Sweden for an example of the end result of these policies), were poisoning the minds of the youth to believe that all of the problems of the world are caused by men, white people, Christians, and heterosexuals being inherently oppressive toward other groups by nature, were teaching racial and ethnic minorities who suffer poverty and other misfortunes that white racism is to blame for their plight and that the only cure is to systematically discriminate against white people and call them racist if they complain, etc, etc, etc. Trump is the one who woke me up to just how crazy the left had become, and how important it is to secure the borders, revamp immigration policies, and fully and utterly reject political correctness.

It would be more accurate to say that I didn't realize all of this until after Trump was elected. During the primaries, I supported Rand Paul all the way, and actually had a theory that Trump was an establishment plant to siphon off Rand's anti-establishment vote, or possibly even a Clinton operative working to hand Hillary the election. I was initially bewildered by why Trump was garnering so much support, when his arguments were so heavily based in emotion and Rand's were so much more logical. (Of course, in a case of 20/20 hindsight, I can now see that that is exactly why* Trump was more successful.) After his election, I started to find out more and more about the issues mentioned in the paragraph above. And now that I more fully understand them, I think that it's possible that Trump might just be the President we need right now, albeit definitely not the type that we need long-term.

PC culture was slowly subjecting us to the frog in boiling water effect, and Obama's presidency kept the leftists pacified and reasonable-seeming. Then Trump came along with his hardcore anti-PC culture warrior attitude and staunchly anti-globalist stance, and the leftists showed their true colors in response. They devolved into a bunch of howling, hateful children before our very eyes. It was an eye-opener that caused me to realize that a classical conservative or libertarian president like Rand would probably get little to nothing done in such a culture. They wouldn't necessarily publicly oppose him as vehemently, but they would be able to quietly undermine any good that he did and keep America shifting further and further toward social Marxism and globalism while he focused on shrinking the government, avoided overusing executive power, and kept his rhetoric calm in order to not offend. We needed someone to troll the the left-wingers so they would show themselves for what they really are, and who would bring attention to and fight to staunch the advancing tides of social Marxism and unchecked mass illegal immigration. Basically, someone to trick the vampires out into the sunlight and teach the villagers how to throw buckets of holy water on them.

This, of course, needs to be a short-term thing. If Trump does his job well, two terms should do the job. His style of governing requires massive use of executive power, something that needs to be limited in the long-term. Also, being anti-PC is one thing, but the level of trolling that he subjects the left to is something that should be unique to him. And while his focus on making patriotism cool again is great and needed, we must not let neocons pervert it into an embrace of foreign interventionism (to his credit, Trump seems to be slowly helping America become a little less interventionist, and has already done far more for world peace than undeserved Nobel prize recipient Obama ever did). Basically, I want him to burn down the current globalist/PC system so that the next President can be in a situation that would let him take things in a much more limited-government direction without being undermined by the globalists and social Marxists.

Of course, there are pros and cons to all of this. Trump has alienated some of the moderates who previously voted Republican, and has triggered a huge anti-conservative backlash. This could make it harder for a conservative or libertarian candidate to get elected. It even increases the likelihood of a brutal leftist payback that purges everyone to the right of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from the American political system forever. I occasionally get chills down my spine when I see some of the threats that leftists write about what they intend to do in revenge after Trump leaves office (one said something to the effect of, "Enjoy your moment while it lasts, conservatives, because Trump is the albatross we're going to hang around your necks for the rest of your lives"). Also, his muscular style of governing has caused an admiration of heavy (almost dictatorial at times) use of executive power among conservatives and Republicans, which is an appetite that needs to be quelled. (Trump himself is using it pretty responsibly, but this power needs to be curbed in case someone less responsible than him ever takes over.) Also, while we arguably need a culture warrior right now to bring the PC poison that was quietly bubbling under the surface out in the open so it can be opposed and quelled, too much controversial rhetoric for too long could backfire.

On the plus side, if someone like Rand is the next President after Trump, the leftists would possibly cut him some slack for speaking freely, because nothing he would say would sound remotely shocking or controversial after years of Trump's rhetoric. Also, with less abrasive rhetoric than Trump, he could maybe coax the moderates back, and maybe even win over some liberals on a little common ground (criminal justice reform, etc). And he could possibly keep up the good things from Trump's administration such as strong enforcement of the borders and immigration laws (assuming Trump actually succeeds in achieving these goals) with relatively little backlash, due to having the excuse that, "The last guy is the one who did all that, I'm just a conservative keeping up the status quo. Now let's talk about something other than a settled matter like immigration." And he could use the fears of those who see Trump as Hitler or worry about his use of executive power as a way of getting those people on board with small-government conservative/libertarian governing.

Basically, any small-government conservative or libertarian running after Trump leaves office needs to make his softer-spoken nature and desire for a less dictatorial style of government major selling points, while reassuring Trump supporters that he intends to keep up strong border and immigration enforcement and embrace American exceptionalism, but also stress that he wishes to behave in a non-aggressive manner regarding foreign policy, yet while keeping the military strong. Basically, he needs to convince people who like Trump that he will keep those Trump policies that make them feel safe, but convince those who don't like Trump that he will be a kinder, gentler President. That's like walking a tightrope, but it should be possible if great care is taken. Also, such a candidate needs to learn the importance of emotion in campaigning, and use that to his advantage.

* To anyone interested in learning more about the importance of emotion in persuasion and the lessons than can be learned from how Trump used emotional persuasion, Dilbert writer and (now) brilliant political commentator Scott Adams wrote an excellent book on the subject entitled, Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter. Here's a Breitbart article that explains the book:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/11/07/scott-adams-and-the-year-of-winning-bigly (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/11/07/scott-adams-and-the-year-of-winning-bigly/)

A quote from said article:


By the time you finish Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter, you will not only understand that election in an entirely new way, but you will see your whole world differently.

The book does so much more than recap his prescient analysis of the presidential race: it argues for a new theory of perception.

Adams believes that humans are not actually rational beings, and that we do not perceive reality accurately. He explored that idea tangentially over the 2015-16 cycle, often in between pointing out the genius of some Trump tweet or another. But in Win Bigly, he gives that theory the book-length treatment it is due. He draws on the election for evidence to support his argument, and teaches the reader how to do, or at least understand, what Trump did.

Adams contends that our perceptions of the world are determined by a particular filter, a way of explaining how things happen. The devout prefer a religious filter; the Marxist might prefer a class filter; and so on.

None of these filters is completely accurate, and we often twist ourselves into knots when reality fails to conform to our filter. Adams calls that “cognitive dissonance,” and he says it explains the media freakout over Trump’s eventual victory.

The best filter for understanding 2016, he suggests, was the “persuasion” filter, which looked at how effectively the candidates were influencing people, not at whether they were telling the truth or whether they were morally right.

In that light, he says, it was clear from the first primary debate that Trump was a “Master Persuader,” deploying “weapons-grade” skills against a hapless field of conservative amateurs and then the hopeless Hillary Clinton.

[Swordsmyth]

Speaking for myself, it was indeed the convention cheating that most devastated me. Of course, I never gave up on the liberty movement (I still support it to this day), but that was the moment that made my morale plummet and made me question whether there was any hope. During the primaries, I felt like we were powerful, as if we represented the zeitgeist, the people of America finally rising up to break off their shackles. Then, the convention happened, and I felt like we were small, insignificant, and foolhardy. A tiny band of misfits that foolishly tried to storm the dragon's lair and got stomped on like ants for our trouble.

The moments that most solidified this feeling in my mind were the bus of Ron Paul delegates being driven in circles so they couldn't get into the convention, John Boehner reading "The ayes have it" off of the teleprompter, and a lone Paul delegate's words being viciously and intentionally drowned out by a chorus of Romney supporters chanting "USA! USA! USA!" as if to imply that a Paul presidency threatened the very existence of America. That last one in particular is still the moment that comes to my mind whenever I hear someone use that old expression about being kicked when one is down.

To be honest, I never saw Rand's endorsement of Romney as a big deal. It seemed to me like a necessary political decision for him that didn't make any difference except to keep him from getting kicked out of the party, as I realized that he was trying to fight for liberty in a more subtle way than his father. I knew that many were upset about it, but it was only a mild and temporary disappointment to me. Ron's career was that of an idealist, and it was in that capacity that he inspired and woke up many people and became the father of a movement. Rand's career is that of a realist, and while that makes him less inspiring, he has managed to get more done in terms of legislation than his father was ever able to. Ron is our General Washington, Rand is our Francis Marion.

Regarding Trump, my opinion is that he is not the ideal President, but has good points and may be helpful if he is followed by a more liberty-minded President. To paraphrase a line from The Dark Knight, he might not be the President that America deserves, but he could be the one it needs right now.

Starting with the 2012 election season, I focused mostly on the problems of the Republican Party. Neoconservatism, party corruption, etc. I almost ignored the Democrats. I knew they were terrible, but my opinion of them was that they were up-front and obvious about how terrible they are, so that they were less dangerous due to only idiots being able to fall for their nonsense; while neocons were far more dangerous due to being subtle and clever, and thus able to hoodwink more intelligent people. Sort of like how people who look you in the eye when they stab you aren't as bad as the ones that stab you in the back.

So my eyes were closed to just how rabidly Marxist and globalist the Democrats were, and the vast influence that their mindset was having on American society (especially the youth). At the time, I thought of political correctness as just an annoying and potentially dangerous form of censorship, and had no understanding of social Marxism or what it entailed. I also thought of illegal immigration as a minor issue that we could iron out once we finished with more pressing matters (like adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy and auditing the Fed).

It wasn't until Trump came along in 2016 that I fully realized that the radical left had adopted an unofficial policy of open borders for the purpose of encouraging mass migration regardless of the trustworthiness of immigrants (probably for the purpose of shifting national demographics in favor of people more likely to support radical leftism), were (whether intentionally or unintentionally) encouraging radical Islamic takeovers of western countries (look at Sweden for an example of the end result of these policies), were poisoning the minds of the youth to believe that all of the problems of the world are caused by men, white people, Christians, and heterosexuals being inherently oppressive toward other groups by nature, were teaching racial and ethnic minorities who suffer poverty and other misfortunes that white racism is to blame for their plight and that the only cure is to systematically discriminate against white people and call them racist if they complain, etc, etc, etc. Trump is the one who woke me up to just how crazy the left had become, and how important it is to secure the borders, revamp immigration policies, and fully and utterly reject political correctness.

It would be more accurate to say that I didn't realize all of this until after Trump was elected. During the primaries, I supported Rand Paul all the way, and actually had a theory that Trump was an establishment plant to siphon off Rand's anti-establishment vote, or possibly even a Clinton operative working to hand Hillary the election. I was initially bewildered by why Trump was garnering so much support, when his arguments were so heavily based in emotion and Rand's were so much more logical. (Of course, in a case of 20/20 hindsight, I can now see that that is exactly why* Trump was more successful.) After his election, I started to find out more and more about the issues mentioned in the paragraph above. And now that I more fully understand them, I think that it's possible that Trump might just be the President we need right now, albeit definitely not the type that we need long-term.

PC culture was slowly subjecting us to the frog in boiling water effect, and Obama's presidency kept the leftists pacified and reasonable-seeming. Then Trump came along with his hardcore anti-PC culture warrior attitude and staunchly anti-globalist stance, and the leftists showed their true colors in response. They devolved into a bunch of howling, hateful children before our very eyes. It was an eye-opener that caused me to realize that a classical conservative or libertarian president like Rand would probably get little to nothing done in such a culture. They wouldn't necessarily publicly oppose him as vehemently, but they would be able to quietly undermine any good that he did and keep America shifting further and further toward social Marxism and globalism while he focused on shrinking the government, avoided overusing executive power, and kept his rhetoric calm in order to not offend. We needed someone to troll the the left-wingers so they would show themselves for what they really are, and who would bring attention to and fight to staunch the advancing tides of social Marxism and unchecked mass illegal immigration. Basically, someone to trick the vampires out into the sunlight and teach the villagers how to throw buckets of holy water on them.

This, of course, needs to be a short-term thing. If Trump does his job well, two terms should do the job. His style of governing requires massive use of executive power, something that needs to be limited in the long-term. Also, being anti-PC is one thing, but the level of trolling that he subjects the left to is something that should be unique to him. And while his focus on making patriotism cool again is great and needed, we must not let neocons pervert it into an embrace of foreign interventionism (to his credit, Trump seems to be slowly helping America become a little less interventionist, and has already done far more for world peace than undeserved Nobel prize recipient Obama ever did). Basically, I want him to burn down the current globalist/PC system so that the next President can be in a situation that would let him take things in a much more limited-government direction without being undermined by the globalists and social Marxists.

Of course, there are pros and cons to all of this. Trump has alienated some of the moderates who previously voted Republican, and has triggered a huge anti-conservative backlash. This could make it harder for a conservative or libertarian candidate to get elected. It even increases the likelihood of a brutal leftist payback that purges everyone to the right of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from the American political system forever. I occasionally get chills down my spine when I see some of the threats that leftists write about what they intend to do in revenge after Trump leaves office (one said something to the effect of, "Enjoy your moment while it lasts, conservatives, because Trump is the albatross we're going to hang around your necks for the rest of your lives"). Also, his muscular style of governing has caused an admiration of heavy (almost dictatorial at times) use of executive power among conservatives and Republicans, which is an appetite that needs to be quelled. (Trump himself is using it pretty responsibly, but this power needs to be curbed in case someone less responsible than him ever takes over.) Also, while we arguably need a culture warrior right now to bring the PC poison that was quietly bubbling under the surface out in the open so it can be opposed and quelled, too much controversial rhetoric for too long could backfire.

On the plus side, if someone like Rand is the next President after Trump, the leftists would possibly cut him some slack for speaking freely, because nothing he would say would sound remotely shocking or controversial after years of Trump's rhetoric. Also, with less abrasive rhetoric than Trump, he could maybe coax the moderates back, and maybe even win over some liberals on a little common ground (criminal justice reform, etc). And he could possibly keep up the good things from Trump's administration such as strong enforcement of the borders and immigration laws (assuming Trump actually succeeds in achieving these goals) with relatively little backlash, due to having the excuse that, "The last guy is the one who did all that, I'm just a conservative keeping up the status quo. Now let's talk about something other than a settled matter like immigration." And he could use the fears of those who see Trump as Hitler or worry about his use of executive power as a way of getting those people on board with small-government conservative/libertarian governing.

Basically, any small-government conservative or libertarian running after Trump leaves office needs to make his softer-spoken nature and desire for a less dictatorial style of government major selling points, while reassuring Trump supporters that he intends to keep up strong border and immigration enforcement and embrace American exceptionalism, but also stress that he wishes to behave in a non-aggressive manner regarding foreign policy, yet while keeping the military strong. Basically, he needs to convince people who like Trump that he will keep those Trump policies that make them feel safe, but convince those who don't like Trump that he will be a kinder, gentler President. That's like walking a tightrope, but it should be possible if great care is taken. Also, such a candidate needs to learn the importance of emotion in campaigning, and use that to his advantage.

* To anyone interested in learning more about the importance of emotion in persuasion and the lessons than can be learned from how Trump used emotional persuasion, Dilbert writer and (now) brilliant political commentator Scott Adams wrote an excellent book on the subject entitled, Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter. Here's a Breitbart article that explains the book:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/11/07/scott-adams-and-the-year-of-winning-bigly (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/11/07/scott-adams-and-the-year-of-winning-bigly/)

A quote from said article:
Well said.

:clap::clap::clap:

[idiom]

There are 186 Libertarians (https://www.lp.org/elected-officials-2/) in office in the US.

This is glorious. More of this.

[RJ Liberty]

This is glorious. More of this.

I definitely would like to see more Libertarians (and other Third Party members) getting elected to local posts. The LP should focus more on local races.

I was gutted by the Laura Ebke news.