Thaddeus McCotter predicts a libertarian "new world order" for the GOP

[devil21]

Looks to be hawking a book but it's nice to see some establishmenty types acknowledge the changing dynamics.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-pl...001241732.html

Though he sees the march toward libertarianism as inevitable with the rise of the millennial generation, which he sees as forcing change within the party, he qualifies that this trend is gradual and has been going on for quite some time.

“The rise of libertarians is not something new within the Republican Party. I mean, Ron Paul actually puts that to rest, but the reality is [that] … the communications revolution is reshaping everything that we've known,” McCotter said. “That culture tends to be more libertarian, more empowered … and eventually that culture -- and the millennials especially as they age and mature -- is going to lead to match a consumer-driven economy to a citizen-driven government.”

Asked if Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is the GOP’s answer for channeling the energy of the libertarian movement into the mainstream Republican Party in 2016, McCotter replied: “Well, I say we're going to have a stallion, I'm not saying it's going to be Man o' War.”

[specsaregood]

Looks to be hawking a book but it's nice to see some establishmenty types acknowledge the changing dynamics.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-pl...001241732.html

Wth does that last quote even mean?

[acptulsa]

Wth does that last quote even mean?

Rand Paul is going to lead, but he's not going to be completely dominant the way the horse Man O' War was when he was racing.

[specsaregood]

Rand Paul is going to lead, but he's not going to be completely dominant the way the horse Man O' War was when he was racing.

ah, derp. I read man o war an I immediately thought of the jellyfish.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, that's certainly the most current reference. I thought of the oldest first, since that's what both of the others were named for:



That didn't make sense either.

[William Tell]

Yeah, that's certainly the most current reference. I thought of the oldest first, since that's what both of the others were named for:



That didn't make sense either.

Yep, I assumed that was what he meant.

[Henry Rogue]

If Rand wins, who will be his Secretariat of state?

[acptulsa]

nm

[Henry Rogue]

Oh come on acp, I didn't even tell you my suggestion for secretary of defense yet. War Admiral.

[William Tell]

If Rand wins, who will be his Secretariat of state?

Hopefully he will choose either Inkblots, Spikender, or mosquitobite.

[Henry Rogue]

Hopefully he will choose either Inkblots, Spikender, or mosquitobite.

I would be ok with just about anyone here, we rub each other the wrong way sometimes, but Libety won't be just rhetoric at least.

[acptulsa]

Oh come on acp, I didn't even tell you my suggestion for secretary of defense yet. War Admiral.

Seabiscuit for Agriculture and Whirlaway for head of NOAA?

I would be ok with just about anyone here whose initials contain neither an M nor a C.

FTFY

[William Tell]

FTFY

Zippy it is then.

[anaconda]

If Rand wins, who will be his Secretariat of state?

There are a Slew of good candidates in Seattle.

[devil21]

Rand Paul is going to lead, but he's not going to be completely dominant the way the horse Man O' War was when he was racing.

I thought it a double entendre. The racing reference but also not a warmonger.

Btw, nice puns yall. Would your choices be Affirmed?

[NewRightLibertarian]

McCotter used to piss on Ron Paul republicans before he was disgraced. Times have certainly changed, but I will never give this weasel a second chance. He's a bigger lowlife than Bentivolio, as far as I'm concerned.

[osan]

Looks to be hawking a book but it's nice to see some establishmenty types acknowledge the changing dynamics.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-pl...001241732.html

Yawn. This is naive beyond tolerance. Don't get me wrong, I hope it proves to become reality, but I don't see it. There is an entire world arrayed against this. Unless some quantum shift occurs pretty well across the globe I am not seeing how this will become fact. The majority of the people in this nation (forget the rest of the world) are in deep and passionate love with their chains. They know the score with their status as slaves that are not called that. This is just like the battered housewife. Why, many ask, would any woman stay with a man who beats her? The answer is simple: the violent husband is familiar - a known quantity - and therefore far less frightening than the unknown "out there". But in the case of people and their slavery it is a whole lot worse. In addition to the fear of the unknown, there is the lassitude of the slave who may complain of his bondage, but when presented the clear opportunity for his freedom, balks. Why? Because to be free requires something of the slave that he has never possessed: responsibility for himself. Slaves are the responsibility of someone else and always have been. It may have sucked to be the senator's catamite or in a field picking cotton all day, but being told what to do, when to do it, and how, has its appeal. In some ways it is less work to be a slave than a free man - or perhaps I should say that the work of the free man is less attractive than that of the slave, in the eyes of the slave.

The majority of Americans love their chains and I don't think there is much that can force them out of that habit. And why should they when they perceive chains as freedom? If you could convince a man that his bone cancer was actually his perfect health, do you think for a moment he would let you anywhere near him with doctors? Not on your life.

[Christian Liberty]

Yawn. This is naive beyond tolerance. Don't get me wrong, I hope it proves to become reality, but I don't see it. There is an entire world arrayed against this. Unless some quantum shift occurs pretty well across the globe I am not seeing how this will become fact. The majority of the people in this nation (forget the rest of the world) are in deep and passionate love with their chains. They know the score with their status as slaves that are not called that. This is just like the battered housewife. Why, many ask, would any woman stay with a man who beats her? The answer is simple: the violent husband is familiar - a known quantity - and therefore far less frightening than the unknown "out there". But in the case of people and their slavery it is a whole lot worse. In addition to the fear of the unknown, there is the lassitude of the slave who may complain of his bondage, but when presented the clear opportunity for his freedom, balks. Why? Because to be free requires something of the slave that he has never possessed: responsibility for himself. Slaves are the responsibility of someone else and always have been. It may have sucked to be the senator's catamite or in a field picking cotton all day, but being told what to do, when to do it, and how, has its appeal. In some ways it is less work to be a slave than a free man - or perhaps I should say that the work of the free man is less attractive than that of the slave, in the eyes of the slave.

The majority of Americans love their chains and I don't think there is much that can force them out of that habit. And why should they when they perceive chains as freedom? If you could convince a man that his bone cancer was actually his perfect health, do you think for a moment he would let you anywhere near him with doctors? Not on your life.

I think it depends on what we mean by "libertarian".

Ron Paul type libertarians (I'm including both minarchists and ancaps in this general category) that believe in the non-aggression principle and private property rights as the main basis for their libertarianism are unlikely to be terribly popular anytime soon.

Gary Johnson type "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" and support small government on a preponderance of the issues based mostly on utilitarianism* or a rejection of Christian moral norms** that are generally considered "libertarian" in the mainstream (despite being far less libertarian than theonomists) are probably becoming more popular, but so what?

*I know there are some very principled libertarians who are more in the first category yet are utilitarians. What I was talking about above is people who pick and choose based on what they think "works" and happen to come to small government conclusions a little more often than not (like Gary Johnson.) I am not talking about people who come to minarchist or ancap conclusions based on utilitarianism there.

**Here I'm talking about people who are OK with abortion and gay marriage "because those things aren't really that big of a moral deal" or whatever, rather than a principled committment to libertarian principles (via the first group.)

[devil21]

Yawn. This is naive beyond tolerance. Don't get me wrong, I hope it proves to become reality, but I don't see it. There is an entire world arrayed against this. Unless some quantum shift occurs pretty well across the globe I am not seeing how this will become fact. The majority of the people in this nation (forget the rest of the world) are in deep and passionate love with their chains. They know the score with their status as slaves that are not called that. This is just like the battered housewife. Why, many ask, would any woman stay with a man who beats her? The answer is simple: the violent husband is familiar - a known quantity - and therefore far less frightening than the unknown "out there". But in the case of people and their slavery it is a whole lot worse. In addition to the fear of the unknown, there is the lassitude of the slave who may complain of his bondage, but when presented the clear opportunity for his freedom, balks. Why? Because to be free requires something of the slave that he has never possessed: responsibility for himself. Slaves are the responsibility of someone else and always have been. It may have sucked to be the senator's catamite or in a field picking cotton all day, but being told what to do, when to do it, and how, has its appeal. In some ways it is less work to be a slave than a free man - or perhaps I should say that the work of the free man is less attractive than that of the slave, in the eyes of the slave.

The majority of Americans love their chains and I don't think there is much that can force them out of that habit. And why should they when they perceive chains as freedom? If you could convince a man that his bone cancer was actually his perfect health, do you think for a moment he would let you anywhere near him with doctors? Not on your life.

How can you not see genius behind a man that looks like this? He clearly knows "what's up".