RP and Mittens are both idiots. LOL to them
I agree. Black Jesus (Obama) better get re-elected or I'm going to riot.
Ron Paul preparing to endorse Mitt Romney
- Thread starter theunicorn
- Start date
I agree. Black Jesus (Obama) better get re-elected or I'm going to riot.
That silly hobbit didn't have a 30+ year ring-tossing record tho.
You're talking about the only elected official in known history who continually denies state medical coverage, secret service protection, and just about every other benefit allowed to an elected representative, based on his strong libertarian beliefs.
^came to post this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNf_TvBJhhg]Ron Paul CNN Interview 06/19/12, Lawsuit On RNC, Mitt Endorsement? RNC CONvention - YouTube[/ame]
@6:35
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNf_TvBJhhg]Ron Paul CNN Interview 06/19/12, Lawsuit On RNC, Mitt Endorsement? RNC CONvention - YouTube[/ame]
@6:35
Another EPJ post
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Politician Math
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Politician Math
The late mafia leader John Gotti, who understood a thing or two about men, once told his daughter: "Regardless of how much a man tells you about how smart you are, he really has only one thing on his mind. You may see a certain man and think of him as grandfatherly, just remember, he has only one thing on his mind."
There is an analogous situation in the world of politics, no matter how much a politician tells you how he wants to fight for your cause, keep in mind that he has only one thing on his mind: getting or maintaining power.
No matter how well groomed or smooth he looks, no matter how well he delivers his lines, he has only one thing on his mind: getting or maintaining power.
In a democracy, in a two man race, a politician must be concerned with the percentage 50% plus one vote.(In a three man race, it's 33% plus one vote, but to keep things simple I will assume a two man race. In a three man race or more, the general idea is the same, just different percentages.) . To be a successful politician, a politician must look at each and every voter and determine whether that person is going to bring him closer to 50% plus one, and how much closer.
In other words, you as an individual voter are not very important to him. Think, I'm kidding? Try getting an appointment with one of your U.S. senators to discuss some tax loophole you would like for yourself, so that instead of sending 25% of your money to the IRS, you get to use the money on a three month per year trip to the Bahamas, which you then are able to deduct from your tax bill. Go ahead, call your senator now and try and get this done.
If you understand politician math and the importance of 50% plus one vote to a politician, you will understand that individuals, who represent large groups of voters, can get appointments with senators. A Citibank lobbyist, and other bankster lobbyists, are also going to be able to get meetings with senators. They bring money that the politician can use in his campaign that will help him advance toward 50% plus one vote. That's why banksters get tax loopholes and you don't.
Understanding this math should help you understand why, for the liberty lover, politics is mostly a waste of time in present day America. Judging by the votes Ron Paul received in the recent primaries, and if we use that as a rough guide for the number of liberty voters, it is under 10%. There is no politician, outside of maybe in a fluke congressional district, that is going to win an election on a purely libertarian campaign. He will need to get from 10% to 50% plus one voter by appealing to groups beyond the 10% libertarians and that means appealing to groups that are decidedly non-libertarian and want something from the government. It has to be, there is no other way. The math says so. Ron Paul was an outlier, but he also did it on a congressional district level. The minute he considered running statewide in Texas for the U.S. Senate, which is a more powerful position and which caught the attention of political power players, Phil Gramm was brought in to run against Dr. Paul and neutralize him.
Bottom line, it makes no sense for an individual to vote, endorse, or work for any politician, especially if you are a libertarian. Democracies are about power players and divvying up the lucre and power. If on the other hand you some how can deliver a vote of 10% or more because you have a following, you may be able to make a marginal incremental influence in favor of liberty. You won't get much, especially when you will be vying against other power players, who want to grab and take and steal and expand government power, but on a practical level, the mathematics work in that you may be able to get something.
This brings us to the curious case of Senator Rand Paul, who arguably once could have delivered to Mitt Romney the Ron Paul supporters and perhaps some Tea Party voters. This would have some weight with Romney and he would have listened to a Rand request for some thing in return for an endorsement. Rand, however, botched it by the timing of his endorsement (immediately after Ron Paul said he could not win, which gave the impression that Rand couldn't wait to endorse Romney), by the enthusiasm of his endorsement for the statist, war hawk Romney and because of his absurd attempt to give the impression that Ron Paul and Romney held similar views on the Fed and war.
Rand did nothing but damage his libertarian base, big time. Good luck with your next money bomb, Rand. Think more bomb and less money.
In addition to damaging his base, Rand also had very little to negotiate for in the first place. The power players associated with war and the Fed, that Romney aligns himself with, are much more powerful than Rand. He wouldn't be able to change Romney's views on those positions. Perhaps if Rand was a skilled political negotiator, he could have gotten the VP spot from where he could have used it for something akin to a bully pulpit for liberty. But Rand immediately came out in his endorsement of Romney and threw Ron Paul's liberty positions on war, and the Fed, under the bus.
This does not mean that endorsements and political contributions can never be used by libertarians, but they need to be used carefully and with skill. There is nothing wrong, for example, with a libertarian billionaire who makes contributions to presidential campaigns and senatorial campaigns that result in, say, his gaining more freedom by getting politicians to write tax loopholes for him (as long as he does not use the power to infringe on others) and there is nothing wrong with a libertarian religious leader with a following, say, endorsing an anti-war candidate against a pro-war candidate.
Indeed, there is nothing wrong with a skillful senator endorsing a presidential candidate in order to gain the vice presidential spot, with the plan to use it as a post from which to launch a daily barrage of pro-liberty statements, but it would take a very rare, very courageous, very clever senator to pull it off. The manner in which Rand Paul showed a lack of courage in standing up for freedom in his endorsement, and his lack of skill in executing the endorsement, shows that he is not such a senator. And, I don't see any others close that could currently fill this role. They are all just about 50% plus one vote.
Indeed, in his interviews since endorsing Romney, in every one of them, Rand really talks about nothing but politician math. He talks about how the support he has lost because of endorsing Romney has been nothing but the hardcore libertarians, "most of whom don't vote anyway," says he. He has been adding up in his head on live television the dynamics of the 50% plus one vote for Romney and his role in delivering that.vote.
Democracy, despite the reverence and lip service placed on "one man one vote", is really about power blocks, get out the vote machines and the power players who control the blocks, machines and money. It has nothing to do with the individual.
The individual is only served away from government. The only chance an individual has to get his unique quirk's met is not from government, where a quirk could never possibly result in a power block to influence government, but in the private property free market society where businessmen are out to serve all--not just the power crazed..
In comparison, unless you are super wealthy, or have a power bloc you can deliver, politics is a waste of time. This is even more the case for the libertarian, since politics is, in the end, mostly the fine art of delivering for the power players by destroying liberty, while talking gibberish about serving the people.
If you buy into the gibberish, you are a sucker.
You are much better off studying about freedom, practicing freedom and writing about freedom, than you are joining and working a political campaign for what ultimately must become a liberty destroying outcome.
There is an analogous situation in the world of politics, no matter how much a politician tells you how he wants to fight for your cause, keep in mind that he has only one thing on his mind: getting or maintaining power.
No matter how well groomed or smooth he looks, no matter how well he delivers his lines, he has only one thing on his mind: getting or maintaining power.
In a democracy, in a two man race, a politician must be concerned with the percentage 50% plus one vote.(In a three man race, it's 33% plus one vote, but to keep things simple I will assume a two man race. In a three man race or more, the general idea is the same, just different percentages.) . To be a successful politician, a politician must look at each and every voter and determine whether that person is going to bring him closer to 50% plus one, and how much closer.
In other words, you as an individual voter are not very important to him. Think, I'm kidding? Try getting an appointment with one of your U.S. senators to discuss some tax loophole you would like for yourself, so that instead of sending 25% of your money to the IRS, you get to use the money on a three month per year trip to the Bahamas, which you then are able to deduct from your tax bill. Go ahead, call your senator now and try and get this done.
If you understand politician math and the importance of 50% plus one vote to a politician, you will understand that individuals, who represent large groups of voters, can get appointments with senators. A Citibank lobbyist, and other bankster lobbyists, are also going to be able to get meetings with senators. They bring money that the politician can use in his campaign that will help him advance toward 50% plus one vote. That's why banksters get tax loopholes and you don't.
Understanding this math should help you understand why, for the liberty lover, politics is mostly a waste of time in present day America. Judging by the votes Ron Paul received in the recent primaries, and if we use that as a rough guide for the number of liberty voters, it is under 10%. There is no politician, outside of maybe in a fluke congressional district, that is going to win an election on a purely libertarian campaign. He will need to get from 10% to 50% plus one voter by appealing to groups beyond the 10% libertarians and that means appealing to groups that are decidedly non-libertarian and want something from the government. It has to be, there is no other way. The math says so. Ron Paul was an outlier, but he also did it on a congressional district level. The minute he considered running statewide in Texas for the U.S. Senate, which is a more powerful position and which caught the attention of political power players, Phil Gramm was brought in to run against Dr. Paul and neutralize him.
Bottom line, it makes no sense for an individual to vote, endorse, or work for any politician, especially if you are a libertarian. Democracies are about power players and divvying up the lucre and power. If on the other hand you some how can deliver a vote of 10% or more because you have a following, you may be able to make a marginal incremental influence in favor of liberty. You won't get much, especially when you will be vying against other power players, who want to grab and take and steal and expand government power, but on a practical level, the mathematics work in that you may be able to get something.
This brings us to the curious case of Senator Rand Paul, who arguably once could have delivered to Mitt Romney the Ron Paul supporters and perhaps some Tea Party voters. This would have some weight with Romney and he would have listened to a Rand request for some thing in return for an endorsement. Rand, however, botched it by the timing of his endorsement (immediately after Ron Paul said he could not win, which gave the impression that Rand couldn't wait to endorse Romney), by the enthusiasm of his endorsement for the statist, war hawk Romney and because of his absurd attempt to give the impression that Ron Paul and Romney held similar views on the Fed and war.
Rand did nothing but damage his libertarian base, big time. Good luck with your next money bomb, Rand. Think more bomb and less money.
In addition to damaging his base, Rand also had very little to negotiate for in the first place. The power players associated with war and the Fed, that Romney aligns himself with, are much more powerful than Rand. He wouldn't be able to change Romney's views on those positions. Perhaps if Rand was a skilled political negotiator, he could have gotten the VP spot from where he could have used it for something akin to a bully pulpit for liberty. But Rand immediately came out in his endorsement of Romney and threw Ron Paul's liberty positions on war, and the Fed, under the bus.
This does not mean that endorsements and political contributions can never be used by libertarians, but they need to be used carefully and with skill. There is nothing wrong, for example, with a libertarian billionaire who makes contributions to presidential campaigns and senatorial campaigns that result in, say, his gaining more freedom by getting politicians to write tax loopholes for him (as long as he does not use the power to infringe on others) and there is nothing wrong with a libertarian religious leader with a following, say, endorsing an anti-war candidate against a pro-war candidate.
Indeed, there is nothing wrong with a skillful senator endorsing a presidential candidate in order to gain the vice presidential spot, with the plan to use it as a post from which to launch a daily barrage of pro-liberty statements, but it would take a very rare, very courageous, very clever senator to pull it off. The manner in which Rand Paul showed a lack of courage in standing up for freedom in his endorsement, and his lack of skill in executing the endorsement, shows that he is not such a senator. And, I don't see any others close that could currently fill this role. They are all just about 50% plus one vote.
Indeed, in his interviews since endorsing Romney, in every one of them, Rand really talks about nothing but politician math. He talks about how the support he has lost because of endorsing Romney has been nothing but the hardcore libertarians, "most of whom don't vote anyway," says he. He has been adding up in his head on live television the dynamics of the 50% plus one vote for Romney and his role in delivering that.vote.
Democracy, despite the reverence and lip service placed on "one man one vote", is really about power blocks, get out the vote machines and the power players who control the blocks, machines and money. It has nothing to do with the individual.
The individual is only served away from government. The only chance an individual has to get his unique quirk's met is not from government, where a quirk could never possibly result in a power block to influence government, but in the private property free market society where businessmen are out to serve all--not just the power crazed..
In comparison, unless you are super wealthy, or have a power bloc you can deliver, politics is a waste of time. This is even more the case for the libertarian, since politics is, in the end, mostly the fine art of delivering for the power players by destroying liberty, while talking gibberish about serving the people.
If you buy into the gibberish, you are a sucker.
You are much better off studying about freedom, practicing freedom and writing about freedom, than you are joining and working a political campaign for what ultimately must become a liberty destroying outcome.
For the record, were it not for the Ron Paul campaign in 2007 I would have no idea who Ludwig van Mises is, would never have heard of Thomas Woods, wouldn't know of Lew Rockwell, would not have ever considered the principle of taxation as theft and probably would have (reluctantly) voted for Barack Obama last election because I wouldn't have known that it's all just a game of throw the other guy out. I could probably list 1000 other positive things that resulted from involvement in the Ron Paul campaign in 2007 and onward. I will never see things the same again.
Of course we need to continue to read and educate ourselves, but as many of have said all along, it's not just about getting Ron Paul elected. This is about the message which is much bigger than the man or the campaign.
Same here.
But Paul didn't run to win. He isn't running to win this time. He ran to educate, just as he did when he was the LP candidate in '88.
If you're going into politics to educate, I can understand that. But it's hard to get elected and stay elected without playing politics, which corrupts the soul. Ron Paul is the rare exception.
If one really believes that politics is going to make them better off, then they are a sucker.
Nonsense. Did you have to engage in race relations or racism to destroy racism?
No, you just stopped acting like an asshole.
If you want to destroy politics, stop giving it your sanction, and ignore as much of it as you can.
You can't fix politics by engaging in politics. Just like you can't paint stripes on a donkey to make him a zebra.
A lot of you knuckleheads should read Lysander Spooner and Etienne de la Boetie.
THE POLITICS OF OBEDIENCE: THE DISCOURSE OF VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
In my limited experience the powers that be love that.
That sounds to me like a pretty good example of entering a room to destroy it.
No, they don't.
They spend a lot of time and money getting your consent, keeping you afraid, keeping you informed of their propaganda. Feeding your kids lies in school.
The last thing they want is for you to think for yourself, or work cooperatively with your neighbors and family in the private sphere.
You don't have to use politics to educate. Particularly in this day and age.
I would argue for every music4mic and myself, there are 100 die hard Constitutionalist retards created by Ron Paul, and it's the minarchists, not the socialists, who are the biggest threat to liberty, because socialists don't know economics or philosophy, minarchists deliberately choose to ignore it.
Without his political platform Ron Paul would have never been able to bring An-Cap/Voluntarist ideas to millions of people. He would have been written off as "crazy", just like many people try to label him now.
But his ideas have hit the mainstream. And millions of people are sharing those ideas with other people, and they'll keep spreading.
Voluntarism could never work without laying the groundwork for mainstream support. If an individual rejects the state they will be crushed. If the majority learns to reject the state, it will collapse.
I'd say that Ron Paul has done more for Voluntarism than anyone in recent history. And that the supporters, like Lukep, who passionately support him are doing good work in waking people up to new ideas and bringing government corruption into the spotlight.
I don't think they're suckers. They're laying the groundwork for radical change, and spreading the message a lot more effectively than any writer or philosopher has been able to do before.
Any data to back this up? The only reason RP clings to the constitution is that it's currently his only weapon to limit government power, and he's said many times that no constitution or bill of rights, no matter how well written is enough to control the state.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs"]Ron Paul is a Voluntarist - YouTube[/ame]
That's a pretty sweeping statement, and I'd argue that economics and philosophy are both highly subjective and not something that people "know" or "don't know".
I'd also argue that socialists are the bigger threat (and I'm not a minarchist).
I agree with you on elections and the state. I just get the feeling that while you're pissing in Luke's Cheerios you're simultaneously taking a giant shit on a much bigger movement, a movement I would have thought you'd welcome with open arms.
^This man gets it.
There is a lot to be said for "sticking to" your principles. I do see that. A vote for any state at all is a "bad" vote, but the problem here is we don't have ANY mechanism for voting for something other than the state... None.
So a Principled vote or action in this day and age truly is a wasted vote/action.
The present liberty movement that Paul has started is doing FAR FAR FAR more work, like to the factor of a Billion times the amount of work at spreading the AnCap message and ideas than all principled efforts out there combined.
If the masses are ever going to collectively take that red pill, it will NOT be given to them by someone who is sticking to their principles... It will be given to them by someone they at least think is a Minarchist, because the masses are too afraid of the word anarchy to every eat any pill an anarchist ever gives them.
Sticking to your principles means you contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the cause you so dearly want to see come about.
It's time for anarchists to compromise or we will surely never see anarchy in our lifetime.
I used to think that. Now it's kind of a tossup between that and using their own system counter to their objectives.
I didn't make my point clearly earlier. For lots and lots of years the elite have been able to count on a certain percentage of people buying into their political bs. As long as they have that percentage participating, they would rather thinking people tune out and not disturb their flock, or their system controlling their flock.
If the elite can count on that percentage day in and day out then so can everyone else, including you and every other ancap who prefers complete disassociation from the state. I don't see that changing any time soon. Maybe I'm wrong. In any case I might venture that you have a long, slow, grinding road ahead of you without infiltrating the system and beating its operatives at their own game.
Not saying you're wrong and it can't be done from without - it can and history has shown that - just saying ancaps holding office is healthy for the ancap cause. Hell it's healthy for everyone.
Would another fifty ron paul types and hard core ancaps in congressional elections and a few hundred more scattered through state governments be more likely to hinder or help the long term goals of anarchocapitalism?
Thank you for clarifying this for me :thumbsup: