Libertarians didn't even rally around Ron. I remember many a time during his campaigns that he was accused of not being a libertarian.Originally Posted by Dianne
Actually, I prefer Rand over Ron.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
There you go again. Conservatism actually encompasses a good deal of libertarianism. The thing that you don't like is that it doesn't include anarchy.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Very good post, I think maybe some forget WHY Ron became so popular. It was his honesty and way of NOT sounding like a politician that made me want to support him. I realize being honest isn't the path to victory, but I have to say if I found out about Rand first and Ron second, I probably would not have ever even gotten into politics.
I guess I can see some going for Cruz or even Trump, but how does any supporter of Ron justify going for Sanders?
Because Ron's coalition involved a lot of left-libertarians whose primary issues were foreign policy and drug legalization, and others who, ultimately, valued style over substance. Sanders sounds more radical and angry, while Rand is more cerebral and isn't talking as much about the issues they care most about. Thus, they go to Sanders, despite the fact that his economic policy is batsh*t crazy and would finish off the country. If you ask them, they know this, but they just want to support someone who makes them feel good about the issues they care most about.
It is in our nature to destroy ourselves.
Yeah, yeah.
The trolls come in here and say they're sick of Rand appearing to be a little soft around the edges of his principles, so they're going to support the most unprincipled son of a bitch they can name. Then the establishment bloggers blog about how his base has abandoned him. Then the trolls come in here quoting the establishment bloggers like that's proof of something, while all the establishment bloggers were doing is quoting the trolls.
It's the same old, tired game. And the veneer is awfully thin.
me too!
Maybe if campaign surrogates like the turncoat Jack Hunter weren't going around playing kiss ass with the liberal media spewing ridiculous PC bull$#@!, it would be easier to trust Rand.
If you're a Sanders supporter, you are not for liberty in any way, shape or form. These morons were never one of us to begin with if they are on that bandwagon now.
This just makes me want to weep. Seriously, like hang my head and cry, that so few people here can put these pieces together. Well, let's try one more time.
I didn't get into Ron Paul because of the federal reserve, or income taxes, or the constitution, or the wars, or even liberty as a concept.
I found Ron because of guns. That was my one issue. I didnt know $#@! about inflaton or gold or declarations of war.
I learned all that after the fact. I looked for the one guy who was the real deal on guns, and I found the guy who was the real deal on a dozen other topics. And I didn't initially believe the way I currently do on any of these topics. Ron convinced me.
If people are glocking to Sanders, its because he is the real deal on their single issue. They've determined that they will sacrifice their other issues as long as they get their one thing. And Sanders is not joking about giving them their one thing.
What is Rand giving you, LE? How about you, 65fastback? What is your one thing you've decided to sell out all your other values to get from Rand?
I was shown that it's possible to get multiple things from a candidate, and I was shown that it's possible for a candidate to convince people that what they previously stood against is actually the right way forward.
If you guys really can't piece together why I would have an issue with Rand, then I'm not really sure what to say. But I aleeady gave you guys an answer... you don't care what libertarians think, you're never going to care, you kust want your one thing catered to. So cut the relationship. We are statistically insignificant, or so you have all said repeatedly, so make it official and just disinvite us.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
Enthusiastic +rep.
I would love to hear why.
I'm coming back to this post because I keep thinking about what you've said. I remember that interview a while back...maybe a year or two...where Rand said: “I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot...I'm not a libertarian.”
Whether by accident or design, libertarians flocked to Ron...and we became a large part of Ron's base. Rand could have inherited that base, but I'm not sure he wanted it. I think he's actually afraid of inheriting the libertarian wing of his father's base.
Unfortunately, almost all other GOP voters see him as inheriting that base and catering to libertarians whether he wants it to be that way or not....a kind of "guilt by association" thing. So, he's damned if he does (want it) and damned if he doesn't.
As Carlybee said....the ball is in his court. He'd better decide.
Last edited by cajuncocoa; 07-30-2015 at 11:24 AM.
Yep. Worse case scenario is..Rand is a true lesser of two evils. Considering the potential jeb or hillary.... rand is a good deal.
That's quite similar to why the average GOP primary voter didn't give Ron a chance. I heard a million times, "I like Ron Paul, but...". That said, we got spoiled the last two cycles. We really DID have the perfect candidate! Not literally, but as close as we're going to get in our lifetimes.
My point has always been that if Rand runs as a carbon copy of his dad, he's going to get his dad's results. His decisions to be a party man and to take more nuanced positions are REQUIRED if he wants a different result.
This comment hurts a lot, and it should. RPF is supposed to be an activist hub that welcomes new people. We used to be better than this. In fact, for the last couple years, this site has been little more than a news source to me; a Drudge Report with a better selection of articles and a hilarious picture thread.
Ron's chances of winning relied on this site. A huge portion of his success can be attributed to these forums. That's how important we are. Can we be that again for Rand?
Golly, that depends on Rand and how far he's moves away from his father as we continue to move forward (speaking only for myself, of course.) I didn't join this site to support Rand...I joined this site to support Ron. Yes, I know that's over but i'm still not going to compromise my principles to support Rand just because he's Ron's son. (and I'm not saying that it's necessary for me to compromise my principles to support him at this point, so please keep your shorts on.)
Ron Paul. My answer to Jack Hunter. If he ran now, he would be taking from Trump as the anti-Washington, truth telling candidate.
The Voluntary Exchange Podcast
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"
"I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."
"The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"
"My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."
The likeness of libertarian politics to cat herding used to be cute and funny back when we were a trivial minority with no chance of success.
Now? ...not so much.
We need a purge, to remove the unherdable. Fortunately, Rand's candidacy is accomplishing that on its own, without having to hurl an formal anathemas.
The movement that will emerge from this cycle (whether Rand wins or not), will be larger, more cohesive, and better organized.
The problem originates mostly from a tendency among libertarians to be petty moral absolutists. I don't think being a purist is bad per se, but I do think it's unwise to let ethical theory largely inform your politics rather than economics. Libertarians who argue mostly from a moral position tend to be naive and narrow minded, and it often leads to them viciously attack anyone who doesn't exactly share their sentiments. In other words many libertarians whose libertarianism is grounded exclusively in morality are nothing more than polemicists.
Some libertarians, both an caps and minarchists, take a more economic take whereas their opposition to the state is the result of their belief that it is always or almost always relatively more inefficient than the free market. The market isn't perfect and liberty will not necessarily lead to a utopian society, however when faced with feasible alternatives it is the pragmatic libertarian who points out that despite its flaws the market remains the best way to allocate scarce resources to their most desired use.
To be sure a moral framework is important and I mostly sympathize and personally agree with libertarian morality. However it is not always best to ostracize every other person for being a statist, simply because they don't initially recognize the truthfulness of your ethical understandings. Likewise you're not going to convince anyone by shouting "Taxation is theft!" at everyone, it's not that it isn't true it's more that it's unlikely to persuade anyone to your point of view.
Well said, +rep.
I've definitely noticed a correspondence between deontologists and purists on the one hand, and consequentialists and pragmatists on the other.
It's not that a deontologist must be a purist - that deontological ethics logically entails political purism - but the two modes of thought are natural bedfellows.
I'm going to cut off everything that followed this because everything else you said is just unnecessary noise. All I need to address is right there above.
Libertarians are for liberty and freedom. You don't compromise on that. Maybe you've heard the saying "being a little bit free is like being a little bit pregnant."
It's impossible, you're either pregnant or you're not...hence, you're either free or you're not. There's no middle ground. There's no compromise. Therefore, yes, we are moral absolutists (which you refer to as "petty.")
^^^Reflects inability to distinguish between means and ends.
What do you mean? You aren't for freedom? You aren't for standing on principle? Never mind that there are numerous interpretations for what freedom means and infinite ideas about the best way to bring about freedom. The important thing is to stand strong and never give in, even if nobody has idea what that even means. You can't compromise on freedom like squishy Rand Paul. Because, you know, freedom, Ron Paul, principals, the Iraq, like such as.
Thank you. It's good to know there are still a few who get it.
You think a forced purge is a liberty position? And how do you plan to accomplish that?
Last edited by Carlybee; 07-30-2015 at 04:24 PM.
Do you think this person stands for liberty? LOL
No I just want him to bite his own tail.
The subtle sarcasm is strong with this one...
You almost had me.
To your first question, a purge in this context means voluntary disassociation, and there's nothing unlibertarian in that.
To your second, as I said, there's no action required by we pragmatists; the purists will self-purge, as it were, by abandoning Rand.
I'm merely saying: good riddance.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 07-30-2015 at 04:42 PM.
Even the Constitution compromises on freedom. Read the Fourth Amendment. It sets the conditions upon which the government can violate your rights.
There's no such thing as total freedom. What we're fighting for here is the maximum amount of freedom we can achieve.
May the odds be ever in your favor.The subtle sarcasm is strong with this one...
You almost had me.
To your first question, a purge in this context means voluntary disassociation, and there's nothing unlibertarian in that.
To your second, as I said, there's no action required by we pragmatists; the purists will self-purge, as it were, by abandoning Rand.
I'm merely saying: good riddance.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us