• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Libetarian canidate Ron Paul

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I do not have a problem with Libertarians, better philosophy than many, just as long as they do not cross the line into anarchist territory (I would rather live under totalitarianism than anarchy) .

Shame there are no politicians around that are pro state's rights anymore.🙁
 
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Rainsford
And Ron Paul is NEVER going to get the GOP nomination. The day has long passed when anyone got anywhere in the Republican party being the champion of any personal freedom that isn't spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. The thing is, I think he could get a number of Americans to listen, but the GOP will never give him a chance.

earth to rainsford the gop are americans.

Yes, thank you...it IS a little confusing since they advocate so many un-American positions, thanks for clearing that up 🙂

Seriously though, my point was that Ron Paul might be able to get widespread support in the general election, but will never pass muster with the base of the GOP. And that's because the GOP base isn't representative of all of America. Duh.

And needless to say, this goes for the Dems too. Look what happened to Lieberman.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Rainsford
And Ron Paul is NEVER going to get the GOP nomination. The day has long passed when anyone got anywhere in the Republican party being the champion of any personal freedom that isn't spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. The thing is, I think he could get a number of Americans to listen, but the GOP will never give him a chance.

earth to rainsford the gop are americans.

Yes, thank you...it IS a little confusing since they advocate so many un-American positions, thanks for clearing that up 🙂

Seriously though, my point was that Ron Paul might be able to get widespread support in the general election, but will never pass muster with the base of the GOP. And that's because the GOP base isn't representative of all of America. Duh.

And needless to say, this goes for the Dems too. Look what happened to Lieberman.

if by muster you mean embrace him like a long lost brother, of course not!
That however does not mean that they will spurn all libertarian ideas, if they think there is an advantage too it...ie another voting block.
 
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I run into so many people who call themselves "republicans" because they don't want socialism. These same people will also say have strong support for free speech, legalizing marijuana, gay marriage.

I think you answered your own question?

What question?

😕



Really, I have to wonder about a lot of people like this who still support the republican party.


I don't see a question mark 😛
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

But they have a few crazy ideas that no one will go for. Legal drugs, defense only starts on the boarder, the whole near anarchy thing etc.


None of those ideas seems crazy to me. What seems crazy to me is the war on drugs and the war on other countries.

As for anarchy, I doubt you know much about that subject.

BTW, Ron Paul is not an anarchist. However, he regularly has meetings and discussions with anarcho-capitalists at the Mises Institute.
 
Dr. No is very popular in his district, among Dems and Pubs alike, and is just looking to wedge the current divide in the Pub party into taking on a more Libertarian view. More of America is of the moderate libertarian viewpoint than of the strictly partisan viewpoint, however a lot of America is entrapped by government into the various entitlement programs (both "right" and "left", the right believes in make-work while the left believes in redistribution). On topic though, Paul has zero hope of actually getting the Pub party nod, he's just looking to transform the Pub party thinking away from the current prevailing neocon/militaristic/fundamentalist viewpoints.
 
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Rainsford
And Ron Paul is NEVER going to get the GOP nomination. The day has long passed when anyone got anywhere in the Republican party being the champion of any personal freedom that isn't spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. The thing is, I think he could get a number of Americans to listen, but the GOP will never give him a chance.

earth to rainsford the gop are americans.

Yes, thank you...it IS a little confusing since they advocate so many un-American positions, thanks for clearing that up 🙂

Seriously though, my point was that Ron Paul might be able to get widespread support in the general election, but will never pass muster with the base of the GOP. And that's because the GOP base isn't representative of all of America. Duh.

And needless to say, this goes for the Dems too. Look what happened to Lieberman.

if by muster you mean embrace him like a long lost brother, of course not!
That however does not mean that they will spurn all libertarian ideas, if they think there is an advantage too it...ie another voting block.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure I've seen a lot of evidence to suggest a resurgence in traditionally conservative ideas is around the corner for the Republican party. For the moment they are too tightly bound to the religions right and neo-conservatives that strongly support guys like President Bush. A sudden political shift away from all of that would probably not gain them another voting block composed of people still pissed about Bush but it would lose them the support of their base, which composes far more of the core of Republican support than the extreme liberals compose the support for the Democrats. Really, Ron Paul would have a better chance with Democrats, if you ask me...although that's not saying much.

The problem is that libertarians have the economic outlook of Republicans and the personal outlook of Democrats. I think they would have a good chance of attracting people who are Republicans for economic reasons and people who are Democrats for personal reasons, but I don't think the base of either party will ever go for it. This might be an incorrect gut instinct, but I just don't see anyone getting up at the RNC and declaring that they are in favor of gay marriage and against actions against the ENTIRE Bill of Rights.
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

But they have a few crazy ideas that no one will go for. Legal drugs, defense only starts on the boarder, the whole near anarchy thing etc.


None of those ideas seems crazy to me. What seems crazy to me is the war on drugs and the war on other countries.

As for anarchy, I doubt you know much about that subject.

BTW, Ron Paul is not an anarchist. However, he regularly has meetings and discussions with anarcho-capitalists at the Mises Institute.

Very few libertarians are anarchists. It's a minarchist philosophy. Even Mises and Friedman were considered to be minarchists, not anarchists.
 
Well, looks like this guy could have an interesting effect in the election. Hopefully he'll get to debate etc.

I'm not sure why some of you guys say the Libertarians are like the Dems on social issues?

Minimum Wage? Sounds like their "hands-off" policy would preclude them from pushing that. Same with Gay Marriage or any number of other social issues.

I've checked their website and read through most of the platform they've posted. Maybe I missed something?

Also, I didn't see anything taht approached anarchy. Seems to be me the very idea of joining a political party or even running for office is so contrary to anarchy that it precludes any connection between the two?

If you've gotten something different, LMK.

Anyway, if he decids to run I hope he'll have an impact beyond mere entertainment value. I respect anybody who has the guts to go against the "system" and vote against the stupid earmarks and such.

The guy will steal the "Maverick" title away from McCain in a big way

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

But they have a few crazy ideas that no one will go for. Legal drugs, defense only starts on the boarder, the whole near anarchy thing etc.


None of those ideas seems crazy to me. What seems crazy to me is the war on drugs and the war on other countries.

As for anarchy, I doubt you know much about that subject.

BTW, Ron Paul is not an anarchist. However, he regularly has meetings and discussions with anarcho-capitalists at the Mises Institute.

Very few libertarians are anarchists. It's a minarchist philosophy. Even Mises and Friedman were considered to be minarchists, not anarchists.

Mises was a minarchist, but his protege, Murray Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist who wrote the Libertarian Manifesto. Also, Milton Friedman's son, David Friedman is an economist and also happens to be an anarcho-capitalist (although of a different economic school of thought).

Libertarianism is not a minarchist philosophy. Those who think it is just haven't taken the premises of libertarianism far enough.
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

But they have a few crazy ideas that no one will go for. Legal drugs, defense only starts on the boarder, the whole near anarchy thing etc.


None of those ideas seems crazy to me. What seems crazy to me is the war on drugs and the war on other countries.

As for anarchy, I doubt you know much about that subject.

BTW, Ron Paul is not an anarchist. However, he regularly has meetings and discussions with anarcho-capitalists at the Mises Institute.

Very few libertarians are anarchists. It's a minarchist philosophy. Even Mises and Friedman were considered to be minarchists, not anarchists.

Mises was a minarchist, but his protege, Murray Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist who wrote the Libertarian Manifesto. Also, Milton Friedman's son, David Friedman is an economist and also happens to be an anarcho-capitalist (although of a different economic school of thought).

Libertarianism is not a minarchist philosophy. Those who think it is just haven't taken the premises of libertarianism far enough.

I disagree strongly with your last paragraph and particularly your last sentence. Libertarianism (as classical liberalism) is inherently non-ideological. It conforms to reality, not premises. Libertarianism advocates the use of just as much (no more/no less) government as is required to prevent force and abuse, and to secure the inherent rights of the individuals. Anarchy cannot do those things and, as such, is (ironically) authoritarian. Yeah, yeah, it sounds counter-intuitive but how do you expect to rid people of their governments except by force? There you go...
 
Originally posted by: Vic

I disagree strongly with your last paragraph and particularly your last sentence. Libertarianism (as classical liberalism) is inherently non-ideological. It conforms to reality, not premises.

It does not seem very realistic to me.

Libertarianism advocates the use of just as much (no more/no less) government as is required to prevent force and abuse, and to secure the inherent rights of the individuals.

And there in lies the problem. Can you make a list of individuals that you would entrust to do such a thing? In other words, can you make a list right now of individuals that you would entrust to form such a government?

Anarchy cannot do those things and, as such, is (ironically) authoritarian. Yeah, yeah, it sounds counter-intuitive but how do you expect to rid people of their governments except by force? There you go...

Anarchy is merely the rejection of fantasy and irrationality.

Therefore, I do not plan to rid people of their governments by force, I merely wish to offer them an alternative to their miserable state run lives.
 
True anarchy is a myth, it's can't exist unless you live completely apart from other humans. As long as you exist alongside other people, one of two things happens.

1. The strong can kill or dominate the weak.

2. The two agree on a set of rules.

In either case, you end up with a government, whether it's a dictator or a democracy. Something will always assume power.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the libertarians got rid of some of their more radical ideas they could make a decent push as a third party. They sit right were much of America sits on so many issues.
Small government, less spending, less government involvement in our personal lives etc.

But they have a few crazy ideas that no one will go for. Legal drugs, defense only starts on the boarder, the whole near anarchy thing etc.
Yeah, that war on drugs sure has been successful.

And the whole pre-emptive war thing has been going great as well.

Near anarchy, you really are well informed. :roll:
Heard of Lew Rockwell?
We talked about him a lot in a thread a while back, a self proclaimed libertarian.
Here is a statement of his:
Just to cite one case, the preachers and religious leaders who spoke out prior to the American revolution were knowledgeable of and friendly toward the liberal tradition. They cited Locke as freely as they cited the Bible. Americans of all classes resented the smallest intrusions on liberty and property as tyranny itself. After the revolution, we enjoyed some 10 blissful years of near-anarchy under the Articles of Confederation.
I think philosophically libertarians are a greater threat to the social progressives of the left than the conservatism of the right.
And just for fun here is a great quote about libertarians:
Ask a libertarian (no, not all libertarians...) what the Department of Education should do, and he will say 'Well, the Department of Education shouldn't exist.' Now of course he's right... But it does. I've seen it. It's practically brimming with bureaucrats who aren't going away and they're awaiting orders from somebody to do something... I always compared libertarians to the Celtic warrior-tribes often employed by British kings. They are incredibly useful as allies in battle, but you wouldn't want them to actually run things
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ask a libertarian (no, not all libertarians...) what the Department of Education should do, and he will say 'Well, the Department of Education shouldn't exist.' Now of course he's right... But it does. I've seen it. It's practically brimming with bureaucrats who aren't going away and they're awaiting orders from somebody to do something... I always compared libertarians to the Celtic warrior-tribes often employed by British kings. They are incredibly useful as allies in battle, but you wouldn't want them to actually run things

Can you provide an example of why libertarians shouldn't be running things? Assuming you are a conservative Republican, why do you trust your party to run things? Have they lived up to their promise of reducing the federal government?

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9502-challenge-list.html

Perhaps you can explain why the Republicans haven't lived up to their claims of a smaller federal government?

I think this is a great quote and although it's more than 10 years old, I believe it still applies today.

"For 23 years, the Libertarian Party has fielded candidates dedicated to reducing the size, cost, and scope of government," said Dasbach. "This past November, in many congressional races, Libertarians faced Republican candidates who promoted the same 'libertarian' themes of reducing government, deregulating business, reforming welfare, and expanding personal liberty. In state after state, the voters enthusiastically embraced these themes, and elected the Republican candidates to the House and Senate who had run on these 'libertarian' ideals of government.
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Vic

I disagree strongly with your last paragraph and particularly your last sentence. Libertarianism (as classical liberalism) is inherently non-ideological. It conforms to reality, not premises.

It does not seem very realistic to me.

Libertarianism advocates the use of just as much (no more/no less) government as is required to prevent force and abuse, and to secure the inherent rights of the individuals.

And there in lies the problem. Can you make a list of individuals that you would entrust to do such a thing? In other words, can you make a list right now of individuals that you would entrust to form such a government?

Anarchy cannot do those things and, as such, is (ironically) authoritarian. Yeah, yeah, it sounds counter-intuitive but how do you expect to rid people of their governments except by force? There you go...

Anarchy is merely the rejection of fantasy and irrationality.

Therefore, I do not plan to rid people of their governments by force, I merely wish to offer them an alternative to their miserable state run lives.

I'm wondering if I can make a list of people I'd trust to show me alternatives to my miserable life. I'm already suspicious you might be worried more about your own misery than mine.
 
Originally posted by: daniel49
though I don't agree with a lot of libetarian ideas. Paul, certainly is no friend to the present administration. I do think some of the libetarian ideas however are good and should be brought into the discussion. I think working for a change in the two major parties is a better vehicle to accomplish change at this point then running as a loosatarian 3rd party candidate.
Discuss:



? House Contrarian Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) Mulls White House Bid. Nearly two decades after he was the Libertarian Party?s nominee for president, maverick Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul is weighing another White House bid ? this time for the GOP nod in 2008.

Paul on Thursday filed paperwork with the Texas Secretary of State establishing a nonprofit corporation, the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee, which can accept funds Paul can use to ?test the waters? for a full-fledged bid.

Should he decide to forge ahead with a campaign, Paul would file paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Paul intends to elaborate on his intentions in a couple of weeks, said Kent Snyder, who is chairing Paul?s exploratory effort.

Paul is well-known on Capitol Hill for his frequent lone ?no? votes on many spending bills and other legislation, much of which wins overwhelming support among both Republicans and Democrats alike.

This a voting pattern that has earned the obstetrician-turned-politician the nickname of ?Dr. No.? Paul explains that he votes only for measures he views as specifically authorized by the Constitution.

In 2006, Paul voted against the Bush administration?s stated position 64 percent of the time, more than any House Republican. His highest-profile departure from President Bush is on the Iraq war, which the congressman vigorously opposes.

In 2002, Paul was among just six House Republicans who voted against giving Bush authority to wage war in Iraq. Paul opposed the resolution for numerous reasons ? including his position that it was an unconstitutional transfer, from Congress to the executive branch, of the power to declare war.

In a Jan. 5 speech on the House floor, Paul also criticized the administration?s then-tentative plans to increase troop levels in Iraq, which Bush confirmed in a speech to the nation Wednesday.

Paul has served in the House for nearly 17 years, but in three separate tenures. He started out on the wrong foot, losing badly in 1974 to Democratic Rep. Bob Casey, but rebounded to win an April 1976 special election after Casey resigned to accept an appointment to the Federal Maritime Commission.

That tour in Congress was brief for Paul. The Democrat whom he defeated in the special election, Bob Gammage, exacted revenge in the November 1976 contest for a full House term. But Paul won their personal rubber match, ousting Gammage in the 1978 election.

Paul left his House seat open in 1984 to pursue a bid for the Republican Senate nomination that failed. He then strayed briefly from the GOP fold, leading to his third-party campaign for president: As the 1988 Libertarian nominee for president, he won about 432,000 votes nationally ? roughly 0.5 percent of the total in a race won by fellow Texan, Republican George H.W. Bush.

Paul returned to the Republican Party, then returned to the House in 1996 after unseating Rep. Greg Laughlin ? who had switched from the Democratic Party after the GOP?s 1994 House takeover ? in the Republican primary.

His mainly conservative constituents in the 14th District, which includes Victoria, Galveston and a 200-mile border with the Gulf of Mexico, are Republican loyalists for president: George W. Bush took 67 percent of the district?s votes in 2004. But Paul?s contrariness evidently plays well at home: He ran unopposed in 2004 and was re-elected with 60 percent last November
Text

He just Officially entered the GOP race today with $500,000

3-12-2007 Republican Paul enters 2008 White House race

WASHINGTON - Ron Paul, a nine-term congressman from Texas and a former Libertarian Party candidate for the White House, said on Monday he would seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

Paul, a longtime libertarian who frequently strays far outside the Republican mainstream, said he was surprised by the level of encouragement he received after forming a presidential exploratory committee in Texas in January.

"I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of people who responded and the fund raising went very well," Paul said on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal." He said he raised about

$500,000.

"The amount of money raised isn't competitive with those established candidates that will raise $100 million," he said. "With the Internet, the amount of money and enthusiasm, I think we can become very competitive."

Paul frequently crosses or ignores Republican leaders in Congress, where he has voted against defense spending bills, called for a speedy withdrawal of troops in Iraq and proposed a diminishment in the power of the Federal Reserve.

According to his libertarian view, the federal government should be limited to the duties specified in the Constitution.

"I'm confident the Republican Party has gone in the wrong direction," Paul said. "We used to be a party of small government. Now we are the party of big government."
 
Never going to happen. As much as i love Ron Paul, he'll never pick up the neo-con or fundy/religious-right vote.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Jadow
Originally posted by: Stunt
Give me a small government Democrat or a socially progressive Republican and I'll be happy 😀

I've seen a few socially progressive repubs, but I never saw me a small govt dem.

While rumours of their existence persist, no reliable source has actually seen a small-government republican since sometime shortly before Reagan.

Funny thing is, aside from some frothy talk, few have seen a small government republican since that exact same time frame....

 
Back
Top