The Myth of the Decline and Fall of the Liberty Movement

[Peace&Freedom]

I missed a chance to post on the closed thread "The Decline and Fall of the Liberty Movement," so here is my comment:

There was no decline and fall of the liberty movement during the last decade, because there was no rise. It was a misfire. The movement centered itself around the Pauls with the wide expectation that the presence of an authentic liberty candidate within the two party primary scene would, by itself, result in stronger likelihood of winning a national election.

In reality, both Pauls ran (literally or effectively) educational campaigns that failed to put together a voting coalition that could win even one primary, nor successfully confront and overcome structural barriers to liberty. So the movement, or at least the Paul iteration, misfired because it was not inclined towards growing to embrace really building those coalitions and tackling those barriers.

What the electoral future of the Paul movement now entails, given that the GOP will control the White House for likely 8 years, is a de-emphasis on presidential politics and a greater concentration on Congressional and state races. There will (and should) also be a re-engagement of the populist and grassroots segment of pro-liberty sentiment, that DID grow during the decade, even as the Paulite or intellectual side declined.

[kpitcher]

Trump isn't even in office and you expect he'll last 8 years?

[Peace&Freedom]

The last three elected Presidents had 8 year runs, so the same is likely for the fourth.

[Cutlerzzz]

Libertarianism isn't a Populist movement. The two concepts are almost entirely incompatible, with Populists generally supporting both economic and social authoritarianism while Libertarians oppose both, and Populists base decisions on what is popular sentiment and whatever the recent outrages are, while Libertarianism is based on principles that don't change over time.

[John F Kennedy III]

The last three elected Presidents had 8 year runs, so the same is likely for the fourth.

Especially with how the left is actually doubling down on the tactics that caused so many people to vote for Trump. If they do that for the next 4 years he is virtually guaranteed re-election.

[Mordan]

I missed a chance to post on the closed thread "The Decline and Fall of the Liberty Movement," so here is my comment:

There was no decline and fall of the liberty movement during the last decade, because there was no rise. It was a misfire. The movement centered itself around the Pauls with the wide expectation that the presence of an authentic liberty candidate within the two party primary scene would, by itself, result in stronger likelihood of winning a national election.

In reality, both Pauls ran (literally or effectively) educational campaigns that failed to put together a voting coalition that could win even one primary, nor successfully confront and overcome structural barriers to liberty. So the movement, or at least the Paul iteration, misfired because it was not inclined towards growing to embrace really building those coalitions and tackling those barriers.

What the electoral future of the Paul movement now entails, given that the GOP will control the White House for likely 8 years, is a de-emphasis on presidential politics and a greater concentration on Congressional and state races. There will (and should) also be a re-engagement of the populist and grassroots segment of pro-liberty sentiment, that DID grow during the decade, even as the Paulite or intellectual side declined.

Ron Paul woke me up, or was it the Media that was being unfair? Both probably.

I always had libertarian leanings however when I talk to other people, they don't want Liberty. They want free stuff. They don't want personal responsibility.

It is a tough battle. They all want Economic Freedom to do what they want and not be forced to work a job they hate just to pay rent.

What do you guys think about the universal income? Alaska does it.

[scm]

Ron Paul woke me up.....
What do you guys think about the universal income? Alaska does it.

IF Ron Paul woke you up, you would realize that is a stupid question to ask here.

I get it, your an, Elon Musk type of "libertarian"

[tod evans]

What do you guys think about the universal income? Alaska does it.

The other 49 do too, it's called welfare.

This guy thinks that all forms of welfare and the associated bureaucracy should be eliminated and the participants publically flogged.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Trump is the oldest man to be elected President, he'll be 74 in 2020.

[CPUd]

Trump is the oldest man to be elected President, he'll be 74 in 2020.

Well his doctor says he's the healthiest man ever elected:

[scm]

This guy thinks that all forms of welfare and the associated bureaucracy should be eliminated and the participants publically flogged.

The people that set it up should be flogged.

[tod evans]

The people that set it up should be flogged.

They're, by and large, dead.

When I say participants I mean every branch of government involved as well as the recipients.

[scm]

They're, by and large, dead.

When I say participants I mean every branch of government involved as well as the recipients.

The recipients is the hard one.
It did "help" a lot of "legitimate" people, and the people that abused it were more "conned" into believing what they were doing was "OK".
People do stupid things, but to keep feeding it, is worse if you asked me. End it all. Free people would find a batter way to deal with these issues.

"This does not mean we should not prioritize and discuss how to gradually transition away from the welfare state, in a manner that does not harm those currently relying on these programs. However, we must go beyond balancing the budget, to transitioning back to a free society. And that means eventually placing responsibility for social welfare back in the hands of individuals and private and institutions."

[LibertyEagle]

Libertarianism isn't a Populist movement. The two concepts are almost entirely incompatible, with Populists generally supporting both economic and social authoritarianism while Libertarians oppose both, and Populists base decisions on what is popular sentiment and whatever the recent outrages are, while Libertarianism is based on principles that don't change over time.

Really? Then how do you explain Johnson/Weld?

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul woke me up, or was it the Media that was being unfair? Both probably.

I always had libertarian leanings however when I talk to other people, they don't want Liberty. They want free stuff. They don't want personal responsibility.

It is a tough battle. They all want Economic Freedom to do what they want and not be forced to work a job they hate just to pay rent.

What do you guys think about the universal income? Alaska does it.

You mean like Communism?

[tod evans]

The recipients is the hard one.
It did "help" a lot of "legitimate" people, and the people that abused it were more "conned" into believing what they were doing was "OK".
People do stupid things, but to keep feeding it, is worse if you asked me. End it all. Free people would find a batter way to deal with these issues.

I'm quite familiar with Ron Paul's position and it's completely sound.

I however hold everybody involved in the welfare/family court/ health-n-human services debacle equally accountable including the hallowed "single mothers".

There may be a few people on either side of the arrangement who could honestly be considered innocent besides the children but in order to make a blanket statement regarding the programs and those who fund, staff and use them I'll err on the side of public humiliation.

Notice though, unlike DA's and members of the "Just-Us" department who I call to be disemboweled for their complicity in wars waged on Americans I merely call for public floggings for these thieves and moochers who intentionally undermine traditional families.

[scm]

I'm quite familiar with Ron Paul's position and it's completely sound.

I however hold everybody involved in the welfare/family court/ health-n-human services debacle equally accountable including the hallowed "single mothers".

I know you do. I'm right there with you on that. I just took the opportunity for a lesson (reminder) for the other who have lost their way.

"Just-Us"

Is that a good movie?

[tod evans]

Is that a good movie?

It's an intentional misspellin' of justice that more fully encompasses the nepotism and protectionism rife within all legal wranglings that would try and punish victimless 'crimes'...

[scm]

It's an intentional misspellin' of justice that more fully encompasses the nepotism and protectionism rife within all legal wranglings that would try and punish victimless 'crimes'...

I got that, I thought someone said theres a new documentary on netflix called "just us"
I just haven't bothered to look into it.

[tod evans]

I got that, I thought someone said theres a new documentary on netflix called "just us"
I just haven't bothered to look into it.

That was me talkin' about a show with another name, can't remember it off the top of my head, but it was well done and served to shine a bit of light on the "Just-Us" department in Wisconsin(?).

[scm]

That was me talkin' about a show with another name, can't remember it off the top of my head, but it was well done and served to shine a bit of light on the "Just-Us" department in Wisconsin(?).

Ahhh

[tod evans]

Ahhh

"Making a Murder"

[Peace&Freedom]

Libertarianism isn't a Populist movement. The two concepts are almost entirely incompatible, with Populists generally supporting both economic and social authoritarianism while Libertarians oppose both, and Populists base decisions on what is popular sentiment and whatever the recent outrages are, while Libertarianism is based on principles that don't change over time.

Populism/nationalism doesn't have to be identical to libertarianism, or viewed as incompatible. It is the opposite of elitism/globalism, and is off on a different vector than the 2-D ideological grid we are used to (see below). It is thus a "free agent" that can be adopted by either libertarians or authoritarians (e.g., there are libertarian populists and libertarian elitists, and there are authoritarian populists and authoritarian elitists). We need neither embrace it on its own, nor demonize it, in order to use it as a tactic to get victories for liberty candidates and policies. The current election cycle has certainly shown the anti-elitist, or populist trend has acted as a useful carrier system for promoting policies that run against the statist establishment:

[Mordan]

Ron Paul woke me up, or was it the Media that was being unfair? Both probably.

I always had libertarian leanings however when I talk to other people, they don't want Liberty. They want free stuff. They don't want personal responsibility.

It is a tough battle. They all want Economic Freedom to do what they want and not be forced to work a job they hate just to pay rent.

What do you guys think about the universal income? Alaska does it.

for the record JFK neg repped this with "....." this as a comment. Bright guy!

[Mordan]

You mean like Communism?

start the thought experiement with:

the state gives 1 dollar to every legal citizen. Is that Communism?

[jllundqu]

Libertarianism isn't a Populist movement. The two concepts are almost entirely incompatible, with Populists generally supporting both economic and social authoritarianism while Libertarians oppose both, and Populists base decisions on what is popular sentiment and whatever the recent outrages are, while Libertarianism is based on principles that don't change over time.

[AuH20]

Populism/nationalism doesn't have to be identical to libertarianism, or viewed as incompatible. It is the opposite of elitism/globalism, and is off on a different vector than the 2-D ideological grid we are used to (see below). It is thus a "free agent" that can be adopted by either libertarians or authoritarians (e.g., there are libertarian populists and libertarian elitists, and there are authoritarian populists and authoritarian elitists). We need neither embrace it on its own, nor demonize it, in order to use it as a tactic to get victories for liberty candidates and policies. The current election cycle has certainly shown the anti-elitist, or populist trend has acted as a useful carrier system for promoting policies that run against the statist establishment:

Populism is the natural defense mechanism to governmental excess. People form tribes to defend themselves from the abuse.

[spudea]

i had a similar thought when i saw that other thread. Can't have a decline/fall if there wasn't ever really a rise/triumph. We suffer from the same kind of echo chamber mentality as what befell the democrats this cycle.

[nikcers]

i had a similar thought when i saw that other thread. Can't have a decline/fall if there wasn't ever really a rise/triumph. We suffer from the same kind of echo chamber mentality as what befell the democrats this cycle.

I don't feel like a loser, but then I again I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton. You can't say that there wasn't ever any thing gained from it when we have Rand Paul in the senate, and the establishment copying us to get the "liberty or the Ron Paul" vote.

[enhanced_deficit]

I have two responses here.

Light hearted:
Without LM, this would not have been possible:

First time in US history, majority of Presidential team may consist of "conspiracy theorists"



Serious:
I see LM much stronger today than it was 15 years ago. Just heard Rand say in an interview on national TV that a speculated candidate for Trump cabinet would face tough questions and may not get confirmation in Senate because that person still thinks Iraq invasion was good for America.