VICE: The One War Rand Paul Wants to Fight

[The Free Hornet]

Two people who ran against each other are your citations of the solidarity and pragmatism of the LP? Are you kidding me?

You made a bull$#@! assertion. Own up or STFU.

The *entire* LP party are political hipsters.

Stop moving the goalposts (where the hell did I mention "solidarity and pragmatism"???). Read your post. I read your bull$#@!. The least you could have done is comprehend the crap you are spewing all over the place.


Also, there was no mention of the "LP" prior to your post. The only reference was to 'small l' "libertarian" (capitalized in one instance as the first word in a sentence). What motivates you to drag in the "LP" specifically? Seriously WTF? FWIW, I'm not a member of the LP but I respect people who are pro-active in the liberty movement. 'Two-step back' types are a major drag.

[idiom]

You made a bull$#@! assertion. Own up or STFU.



Stop moving the goalposts (where the hell did I mention "solidarity and pragmatism"???). Read your post. I read your bull$#@!. The least you could have done is comprehend the crap you are spewing all over the place.


Also, there was no mention of the "LP" prior to your post. The only reference was to 'small l' "libertarian" (capitalized in one instance as the first word in a sentence). What motivates you to drag in the "LP" specifically? Seriously WTF? FWIW, I'm not a member of the LP but I respect people who are pro-active in the liberty movement. 'Two-step back' types are a major drag.

I don't know why we can't be happy to support anyone who wants less government than we currently have, even if they don't currently profess to want zero government.

Its like there is a perverse wish for a massive economic collapse of the global system in the insane hope that *nothing* will emerge from the apocalypse, paving the way for an anarchist utopia.

"If I can't vote for my fantasy candidate, then I am not going to vote. Because Democracy sucks. And everyone else is a dumb-dumb head!"

[The Free Hornet]

I don't know why we can't be happy to support anyone who wants less government than we currently have, even if they don't currently profess to want zero government

With the caveat that they actually support less government (no votes for expanded budgets, promised spending cuts in the future do not count) and take steps to achieve that end (Reagan didn't, Bush 1 & 2 didn't), then I support them. The question is, why do you NOT support what you wrote above (you clearly have an issue with some of us happily voting for LP candidates in the general) :

The *entire* LP party are political hipsters.

Its like there is a perverse wish for a massive economic collapse of the global system in the insane hope that *nothing* will emerge from the apocalypse, paving the way for an anarchist utopia.

I based my opinion on posts #1 thru #18 which preceded yours. I didn't see that particular sentiment pushed and it doesn't bother me if people aren't 100% Rand. This is more of a thing to watch than to participate in (vs 2008/12). It's like watching one of the smarter monkeys nearly crack a coconut (when we're the dumb monkeys that don't yet know how).

"If I can't vote for my fantasy candidate, then I am not going to vote. Because Democracy sucks. And everyone else is a dumb-dumb head!"

You're the one pushing a particular method of voting:

The *entire* LP party are political hipsters.

More so, you fail to understand the game theory that supports third party voting. Here are links to the links explaining the position:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5637160
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5659841

I have a theory - unproven - that LP candidates on the ballot actually help GOP candidates. I won't claim that voting LP helps the GOP candidates but it does give incentive to the GOP (rank & file - not the puppetmasters) to select better ones.

[PierzStyx]

If he came out as 100% libertarian when elected it would destroy libertarianism forever.

You don't want that in one hit as much as you may dream about it in the wee hours.

No candidate will will the Presidency if he runs on a platform of dissolving the United States in 2016, so one has to figure out what the hell one is trying to achieve.

Democracy is largely incremental. It is the way it works best and the way the Republic is designed.

You cannot trick the public into becoming honest citizens, they have to hit rock bottom and get there for themselves.

Dissolve the United States? Libertarians aren't anarchists. Libertarians are statists by definition, as in they believe in very small states run only by rules that protect human rights and aren't focused on making someone be good. But that is still an endorsement of a type of government and state.

As for democracy, if a person is lying about their positions and beliefs do you really want them to be your leader? I don't. If they can lie to your face about one thing they will about other things as well.

[PierzStyx]

I don't know why we can't be happy to support anyone who wants less government than we currently have, even if they don't currently profess to want zero government.

"If I can't vote for my fantasy candidate, then I am not going to vote. Because Democracy sucks. And everyone else is a dumb-dumb head!"

I love how stupidly opposed these two ideas are. "Democracy is great, unless you actually vote for the person you like the most! Then you're a moron!" How ridiculous. Why would you vote for anyone other than the person who most meets your views or even better, for the one that completely holds your same views?

[The Free Hornet]

Libertarians aren't anarchists.

There is no reason they can't be. The definition of both is sufficiently malleable to reasonably permit this. More so, being a member of the LP does not imply adherence to a specific philosophy (not even libertarianism). Given the warlords running around the US, I have every reason to believe no-rule-of-law anarchists are quite prevalent among the GOP and Democrats.

Libertarians are statists by definition, as in they believe in very small states run only by rules that protect human rights and aren't focused on making someone be good. But that is still an endorsement of a type of government and state.

It's a bigger tent than that.

As for democracy, if a person is lying about their positions and beliefs do you really want them to be your leader? I don't. If they can lie to your face about one thing they will about other things as well.

This would likely eliminate nearly every candidate (especially lies about "beliefs" - religion, 'what a beautiful baby'). Too many people in a democracy expect their leaders to reflect their own falsely held beliefs. So we get these god-fearing, apple-pie-eating, freedom-loving $#@!s that fall short (maybe they do eat apple pie on occasion especially if at an event where they can't spit out granny's prize-winning apple pie).

So I might want somebody to tell me the truth, but I doubt that that is compatible with winning a state-wide election. I'll judge them by their actions regardless, not their professed beliefs.

[Christian Liberty]

Pure libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism.