Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[Faithful Skeptic]

Glad to meet you! And I wish I had seen this comment as soon as you post it. If you are of a voluntaryist mindset but find yourself preferring more social means of organizing the market, you might be interested in learning about Mutualism. I recommend Kevin Carson's site (I don't know what it is, just Google his name) for starters, though I should warn you he is very anti-religious.

I still have to look into voluntaryism (and now mutualism) a bit more, but thanks for reference. I'll look him up. I'm used to anti-religious sentiments--I'm a college student.

As for voting, I used to be rather strongly against voting, and I refuse to vote for evil, and thereby the 'lesser of two evils'. However, I'm starting to warm up a bit to the idea given Ron Paul's progress in this campaign. He's gotten further than I thought, and I hope he goes even further. If I do end up voting this election, then my reasoning would, again, be a lot like MacFall's reasoning for voting on a referendum. I'd do it because I believe that it might morally reduce the harm done to my neighbors/countrymen. I italicized morally because if I didn't think that Dr. Paul was honest and had a sound moral philosophy, then I wouldn't be able to vote for him.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't get the idea that many people view it as a way to change anything. It seems like many people just mark the ideology next to the name, not with the idea that they are going to change anything, just to keep "their" people in power.

I always vote. I don't necessarily think it will change anything, but at least I can take a stand for the candidates or issues I believe in (in my state, WA, a lot of our legislation is by means of initiatives or referendums, much more direct democracy than in most places).

And sometimes the people or ballot measures I vote for even win! Not often, but it does happen. And sometimes I'll settle for keeping the greater evil out.

I'm encouraged to see Ron Paul make a solid 2nd place showing in the Iowa straw poll.

 

[Cute Tink]

I always vote as well. Sometimes the candidate I vote for wins, but it's rare. Occasionally, the stuff I vote to keep out wins too, but that's usually tax increases and those are unpopular anyway.

 

[d'Albert]

I tend to like him too. A little off-putting at times on foreign affairs, but his philosophy is strong.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I tend to like him too. A little off-putting at times on foreign affairs, but his philosophy is strong.

Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico) is like a more diplomatic, younger, and more executive experienced version of Ron Paul. He takes the same positions on nearly all the issues. He also lacks Paul's connections to assorted fringe loonies. But Ron Paul is better known and gets all the attention.

Because of their radically non-interventionist foreign policy positions, which I think in today's world are unrealistic and dangerous, I'd have second thoughts about voting for either one if they actually won the GOP nomination. But other than that, I love them both.

 

[MacFall]

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Good one!

But I don't think that's a fair comparison. Jesus' 'policy' of loving your neighbor is ethical, admirable and practical. Even for non-Christians it makes sense in terms of karma and of game theory. I don't think any of that is true of Paul's radical non-interventionism. Mind, I'm not advocating the opposite, that we should build an American empire or get involved in everything we can, but that a reasonable and practical balance is necessary.

 

[MacFall]

There is no "balance" between interventionism and non-interventionism. Either you use the armed forces only to repel extant threats, or you use them belligerently. Having permanent bases in countries that are not threats to the domestic peace of America is belligerence. Invading countries that might attack America at some point in the future is belligerence. Occupying foreign countries and propping up foreign regimes is belligerence. Having a military larger than every other military in the world combined is belligerence (since there would be no way to keep a military of that size within the borders of the United States). And that's not even going into the Constitutional argument, according to which we shouldn't even HAVE a standing military.

The comparison of Paul to Jesus in the graphic I posted is tongue-in-cheek, but really--how can anyone think that supporting interventionism could possibly be in line with the morality Christians claim to uphold? There is no compassion, no charity, and no freedom in it. Only bullying on one side and resentment on the other, and violence all around.

The only way to have a defensive foreign policy is to drastically cut the size of the military, end foreign occupations, and respect the sovereignty of other nations as equal to that of the United States; and to give the people at home the ability to make themselves safe with the freedom to keep and bear arms, and by ending the government's monopoly on security. Paul is the only politician who is offering that freedom.

But what middle ground were you looking for? Only invading and occupying one foreign nation at a time? Or just having a lot of bases around the world and not using them? Unfortunately, that is not realistic. When you put politically ambitious people in charge of a globe-spanning military power, they WILL use that power. There's no way to restrain the bloodlust of politicians as long as the warfare state is available to them. And as Paul has pointed out, all military powers eventually turn their guns inward, to their own people. History shows it again and again. The choice is between liberty, and the risks that come along with it (which risks are much better handled by a free people than by a strong state); or dependence on, and eventually destruction at the hands of, unlimited state power.

 

[MacFall]

Family Leader writes off Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Ron Paul - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

Van Der Platt's group is endorsing Newt freaking Gengrich over Paul on the issue of marriage values.

This is why I support the separation of church and state: politics corrupts and makes hypocrites out of every person and every institution that gets involved in it. Including Christians and Christian organizations.

 

[Christ is Love]

Hello everyone! I'm somewhat new to this forum. I'm a libertarian non-denominational Christian and I'm so glad that there are other libertarians here. Despite the overwhelming liberal influences at my law school, I ended up becoming a libertarian after I saw all the miscarriages of justice caused by "expediency." So naturally, I'm a strong supporter of an originalist Constitutional republic. I'm happy to be here!

 

[Cute Tink]

Welcome to the forums in general and to the libertarian section.

 

[BakoGuy]

Hello fellow libertarians!

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

'Ello 'ello, fellow Revolutionaries! I am a very devout Libertarian (though my technical title would be "Moderate Libertarian Liberal" - I have a very slight lean to the left of the center of the spectrum, but not much).

Out of curiosity (18 pages is too much right now), how does everyone feel about Dr. Ron Paul?

 

[Cute Tink]

Hello and welcome

Most people have posted in this thread about Ron Paul. I think the general consensus is that we mostly like him, but acknowledge that he will probably never get elected president.

Personally, I think his chances would be better if he made more time to explain his position on everything.

 

[MacFall]

I don't think even Paul ever believed he would become President. I think that for him, it's always been about education. And that's why I support him. The bigger he gets, the more people hear about and consider ideas like non-interventionism and libertarianism and Austrian economics. But I'm afraid that actually having him as President would be like putting him in charge of the Titanic before it struck the iceberg but after it was too late to do anything, and then he'd take the blame.

 

[Cute Tink]

Certainly MacFall.

I heard from the local talking heads that he wasn't responding or declining to appear on the radio talk shows here. I think he should try to make more time to make appearances so people can understand him better. He might still not get elected and his chances may not improve, but maybe more people will hear him that way.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

It's also a race for delegates. Candidates who don't make the nomination can actually use their delegates at convention to change the party's platform, which I think is important for every fan of Dr. Paul to consider.

As far as his message goes, I really think his debate progress is showing that he is learning how to give his message better. The next five contests after Florida are predicted to be between Dr. Paul and Obamney, so we'll see how that goes.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Hello and welcome

Most people have posted in this thread about Ron Paul. I think the general consensus is that we mostly like him, but acknowledge that he will probably never get elected president.

Personally, I think his chances would be better if he made more time to explain his position on everything.

Sorry i'm late to the party Tink.

Fact is that due to the media coverage that Ron Paul is getting, he won't be given time to explain anything, except possibly who wrote those news letters back in the 90's...even though the media ALREADY knows the answer to that, and it wasn't Dr. Paul.

Better that he explains that in the college campuses, and other speaking engagements that don't get the television coverage. Media talking heads glaze up at minutia. It doesn't come in a 15 second sound bite, and is beyond their comprehension.

It's a slower system, but besides being in this for a win, Dr. Paul is in this for didactic purposes as well. Those things are usually wasted on the people watching a televised debate, unless the point can be made in a convenient sound bite.

 

[MacFall]

The information that the man who actually wrote the "racist newsletter" articles is now some bigwig at Forbes magazine (and who is anti-Paul at this point) has been out for months now. The fact that the media trenchantly ignores the answer to the questions they keep asking ought to give you a good idea of what to expect from them on coverage of his actual beliefs.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Slim to nil. They also don't report his major endorsements. For example, they failed to mention that he got the BIGGEST South Carolina endorsements from popular state Senator Tom Davis, black conservative political leaders, and Tea Party leaders. They never mentioned that national security/foreign policy geniuses like Michael Sheuer came out in support of his "dangerous" foreign policy. They never interview him after debates. They barely mention him in post-debate coverage.

It's also interesting to note that at the debates, he's always at the very end of the line.