Is Rand our man or not?

[klamath]

I didn't say anything about defense. To my understanding of what you believe, you still believe in some level of taxation, and you don't believe local governments are inherently wrong to pass laws against victimless vices such as prostitution. If I'm wrong on either of these points, please correct me.

I'm not sure where you got anything whatsoever about being opposed to defense or a pacifist from my post. I'm not a pacifist, BTW.


I doubt Ron would claim ownership of the movement, but that aside, you asked a question and I gave you my opinion. Then you pretend to be offended because we answered you. This is frankly rude.


Mighty white of you. Look, your nirvana isn't going to come overnight. Nor, are you going to get everyone on-board with everything you believe at first, if ever.




Yes, it does, at least on that one issue. You use euphemisms to hide the true evil of what's being proposed, but what is really being proposed when "public roads" are being proposed is that money will be taken from taxpayers at gunpoint in order for the government to build roads. Yes, that is anti-liberty. Of course, the individual proposing it may not fully understand what he proposes, but its still anti-liberty.

Its funny, because I got frustrated with Eric Peters when he said something to this effect less than a year ago. I've gotten a lot more radical in a fairly short time.


I'll ask him.



I suspect that electing a President could, however, tie half-hearted ideas with the "liberty movement" if the liberty-movement president doesn't stick by his convictions.

I don't see how not having to vote for Rand (For the record, I intend to vote for Rand) makes us free...

you still have a choice. And by the same token I think electing someone insanely radical will seal the tomb of freedom for centuries but again we are still free to express our opinions and haven't been thrown in the gulag yet.

 

[Christian Liberty]

you still have a choice. And by the same token I think electing someone insanely radical will seal the tomb of freedom for centuries but again we are still free to express our opinions and haven't been thrown in the gulag yet.

Well, yeah, I'm with you that we're not as bad off as, say, North Korea, but I'd construct that as being less unfree, not more free.

I don't know how long it will take, but it won't be difficult for the US to indirectly arrest people for their speech simply by making all kinds of laws that can't possibly be followed and then, when they want to get someone, bring up some barely known law instead of the speech violation. The "law and order" types will accept it.

@LibertyEagle- Do you have an email address to contact Rockwell? I check LRC and I didn't immediately find one. Otherwise, I'm not really sure how I can contact him in order to ask him that question.

 

[Dogsoldier]

"the more I really do not wish to take part in electing a president."

I had a blast but only because I believed whole heartedly in Ron Paul. He was the first person that had ever run for president that represented me. He may be the last. I'd do it again in a heart beat if were talking Ron Paul...I wish I had the chance.

 

[Neil Desmond]

I don't know yet, but I think I'm leaning towards giving Rand a chance. I think it would be a waste to not support him as long as he's substantially on the side of libertarianism and doesn't have negative drawbacks that are too significant to let slide. If he becomes POTUS and does a decent job, proves himself worthy, I'll advocate for re-electing him. If not, I'll see if I can find someone else who will and support that person instead.

Yeah, he campaigned for Romney. I didn't want Romney to be the Republican candidate and I didn't vote for him, but that to me is not necessarily a good reason to say forget Rand. He said he'd support whoever was the Republican candidate, and he stuck to his commitment to do so. I didn't like it & it wasn't a pleasant pill to swallow; but at the same time I recognize the wisdom in that "move".

We all have to be wise in the moves we make no matter who we are. In order to be able to advance to POTUS, one has to make friends who'll support them in their mission; that's exactly what he's doing by calling himself a Republican and saying he'll support the candidate. You can call it a sacrifice or dues to pay; we all have to make sacrifices and pay our dues.

Now he stands a great chance of becoming POTUS. He scratched the GOP's back, and pretty soon it'll be the GOP's turn to scratch his back. The way I see it, they damn well better scratch his back, do a good job at it, and not dare so much as think of putting a knife in it (figuratively speaking, just to be clear). Many on the right have demonstrated what seems to be a sincere affinity for him as a fellow Republican, so basically the GOP is compelled to reciprocate; if they don't, they'd probably be taking a terrible risk of being done for permanently (because it'll look like a blob with no backbone or principles to voters on the right).

Nobody's perfect, so why should Rand have to be so perfect? As we get closer to 2016, think of the big picture, cleverness & beauty in what he's doing, and what the alternative option is before dismissing Rand.

"I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron"

This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.

Because of her poor handling of Benghazi, I simply can't imagine her being a viable contender against Rand. I feel like she's just someone TPTB are dangling in front of everyone to make them think she can be anything of the sort, while they quietly search for or mold and polish someone to deploy onto the campaign trail as their candidate.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I didn't say anything about defense. To my understanding of what you believe, you still believe in some level of taxation,

Do you consider tariffs, taxes? Because I am not against those in a limited sense. Ron Paul has spoken of these too.

and you don't believe local governments are inherently wrong to pass laws against victimless vices such as prostitution. If I'm wrong on either of these points, please correct me.

I wouldn't make it a crime to be a prostitute, no. But, I am not against local ordinances that houses of ill repute have to be outside of city limits.

I'm not sure where you got anything whatsoever about being opposed to defense or a pacifist from my post. I'm not a pacifist, BTW.

Have to check around here. Because there are some pacifists.

I doubt Ron would claim ownership of the movement, but that aside, you asked a question and I gave you my opinion. Then you pretend to be offended because we answered you. This is frankly rude.

Actually, I thought it was a bit strange that you inserted yourself in a conversation that I was clearly having with CajunCocoa. I never asked you anything at all.

Yes, it does, at least on that one issue. You use euphemisms to hide the true evil of what's being proposed, but what is really being proposed when "public roads" are being proposed is that money will be taken from taxpayers at gunpoint in order for the government to build roads. Yes, that is anti-liberty. Of course, the individual proposing it may not fully understand what he proposes, but its still anti-liberty.

I'm not an anarchist. I realize that is your flavor of the month. No one is talking about using guns, but you. I am talking about basic roads through the town. People would vote whether to have them or not. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, if I thought it was a workable solution. But, frankly, we are so far from getting government limited down to this level, that I would think we had more important things to do than to pontificate about our navels.

Its funny, because I got frustrated with Eric Peters when he said something to this effect less than a year ago. I've gotten a lot more radical in a fairly short time.

Thing is, it's going to take much more than getting lost in philosophy land if you want to make any real changes in the direction of this country.

I'll ask him.

cool

I suspect that electing a President could, however, tie half-hearted ideas with the "liberty movement" if the liberty-movement president doesn't stick by his convictions.

I don't see how not having to vote for Rand (For the record, I intend to vote for Rand) makes us free...

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[LibertyEagle]

@LibertyEagle- Do you have an email address to contact Rockwell? I check LRC and I didn't immediately find one. Otherwise, I'm not really sure how I can contact him in order to ask him that question.

Look at the bottom of the screen on the lewrockwell.com site. You should see a link for "contact". Click it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you consider tariffs, taxes? Because I am not against those in a limited sense. Ron Paul has spoken of these too.

Tariffs are better because at least they can be avoided and aren't extracted directly from the citizenry. I'd ultimately like to see these abolished too, but I'd honestly be thrilled if that was the only kind of taxation we had to deal with.

I wouldn't make it a crime to be a prostitute, no. But, I am not against local ordinances that houses of ill repute have to be outside of city limits.

In what sense are you not against them? Are you not morally opposed to them? Or are you simply saying you agree with decentralization?

Have to check around here. Because there are some pacifists.

I know, but I sure as heck am not one of them.

Actually, I thought it was a bit strange that you inserted yourself in a conversation that I was clearly having with CajunCocoa. I never asked you anything at all.

Well, you asked on the public forum. I suspect if you had only wanted her answer you would have PMed her.

I'm not an anarchist.

I've deliberately decided not to use that term, personally, for strategic reasons primarily. I believe in the abolition of the State, however.

No one is talking about using guns, but you. I am talking about basic roads through the town.

OK, so how are the roads being paid for? What if someone doesn't want to pay for them?

People would vote whether to have them or not. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, if I thought it was a workable solution.

I still want to read Block's book on this, as its an issue I don't know nearly enough about. But just as a simple answer, why couldn't someone else build the roads, without being funded by private taxation? That strikes me as the obvious solution.

But, frankly, we are so far from getting government limited down to this level, that I would think we had more important things to do than to pontificate about our navels.

I agree that there are bigger issues to discuss first. But, if someone supports using aggression to raise money to build roads, I would consider that person to not really be a supporter of liberty. I'm not sure what definition of 'public" you use though, there might be a definition of "public" that would not involve such aggression so I'll give you a chance to propose one.

Thing is, it's going to take much more than getting lost in philosophy land if you want to make any real changes in the direction of this country.

I sort of disagree on this. Ultimately, pragmatic arguments don't work. We need to stick to moral principles, or else our views are just as subjective as anyone else's. Hence why I am an "anarchist", because I stick to principle, all the time.

cool

I shot him a message.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

If Rand Paul is elected President, and fails, it will reflect poorly on our ideas, even if Rand doesn't actually follow those ideas, or is prevented from doing so by congress. That was ultimately my point, but looking back, I worded it really, really poorly. Sorry about that

 

[compromise]

Do you consider tariffs, taxes? Because I am not against those in a limited sense. Ron Paul has spoken of these too.

If that's true, Ron Paul is an idiot. I can understand him opposing FTAs (even though I disagree with him there), but tariffs are clear infringements upon our rights to free trade.

As for the OP's question, yes, Rand is our man. Rand has wide support, as shown by the Colorado poll where he's leading Clinton. His support for common sense immigration reform and mandatory minimum sentencing reform has bi-partisan appeal. I believe Rand is better than Ron Paul, because he does not carry the same amount of baggage of Ron. 95%+ of people who voted for Ron in the real world support Rand. 85-90% of the people on this site support Rand. Rand may not be so popular among the far-left of the Democratic Party or the radical anarchist Kokesh crowd as Ron, but many of these people never really voted for Ron anyway because they weren't registered Republicans.

 

[dinosaur]

If that's true, Ron Paul is an idiot. I can understand him opposing FTAs (even though I disagree with him there), but tariffs are clear infringements upon our rights to free trade.

You don't have the "right" to make every country in the world practice free trade with you.

 

[erowe1]

If that's true, Ron Paul is an idiot. I can understand him opposing FTAs (even though I disagree with him there), but tariffs are clear infringements upon our rights to free trade.

Ron Paul is definitely anti-tariff.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/03/ron-paul/protectionism-vs-liberty/

 

[Christian Liberty]

If that's true, Ron Paul is an idiot. I can understand him opposing FTAs (even though I disagree with him there), but tariffs are clear infringements upon our rights to free trade.

First of all, "idiot" is not a word to describe Ron Paul, whether you agree with him or not.

Second of all, if we were talking about protective tariffs, I would agree with you. But if you are going to have taxes (Note: I am opposed to taxation on principle) tariffs are better than income, sales, or property taxes because they can be avoided. Income taxes, you basically have to pay to live. Sales taxes, same. Property taxes make you a slave on your own land. But tariffs can be avoided by buying things in the US. That doesn't make them right. If I told you "trade with X, Y, or Z, or, if you want to trade with anyone else, you have to give me a 10% cut" that would clearly be wrong. But its still better for you than if I just took 10% of everything you earned.

As for the OP's question, yes, Rand is our man. Rand has wide support, as shown by the Colorado poll where he's leading Clinton. His support for common sense immigration reform and mandatory minimum sentencing reform has bi-partisan appeal. I believe Rand is better than Ron Paul, because he does not carry the same amount of baggage of Ron. 95%+ of people who voted for Ron in the real world support Rand. 85-90% of the people on this site support Rand. Rand may not be so popular among the far-left of the Democratic Party or the radical anarchist Kokesh crowd as Ron, but many of these people never really voted for Ron anyway because they weren't registered Republicans.

But Rand's positions are more moderate than those of Ron Paul. I support Rand, but I think its ridiculous to say he's somehow "better" than Ron.

 

[compromise]

First of all, "idiot" is not a word to describe Ron Paul, whether you agree with him or not.

Second of all, if we were talking about protective tariffs, I would agree with you. But if you are going to have taxes (Note: I am opposed to taxation on principle) tariffs are better than income, sales, or property taxes because they can be avoided. Income taxes, you basically have to pay to live. Sales taxes, same. Property taxes make you a slave on your own land. But tariffs can be avoided by buying things in the US. That doesn't make them right. If I told you "trade with X, Y, or Z, or, if you want to trade with anyone else, you have to give me a 10% cut" that would clearly be wrong. But its still better for you than if I just took 10% of everything you earned.


But Rand's positions are more moderate than those of Ron Paul. I support Rand, but I think its ridiculous to say he's somehow "better" than Ron.

I think Glenn Beck's scale works well here:

Hillary--[Our current political position]--Christie-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rand---Ron

Even if Rand is not as libertarian as Ron, he is still light years more libertarian than Christie or Hillary and therefore the direction he would shift the US would be the same direction Ron would shift the US in if he were President. Both Ron and Rand are more libertarian than Congress would allow their policies to be as President. Therefore it does not matter if we have Ron or Rand. If we get beyond Rand's "point of libertarianism", then we can argue whether we agree with Ron more or Rand more. Until then, we must support Rand, as he's the only one of the two who can win.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think Glenn Beck's scale works well here:

Hillary--[Our current political position]--Christie-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rand---Ron

Even if Rand is not as libertarian as Ron, he is still light years more libertarian than Christie or Hillary and therefore the direction he would shift the US would be the same direction Ron would shift the US in if he were President. Both Ron and Rand are more libertarian than Congress would allow their policies to be as President. Therefore it does not matter if we have Ron or Rand. If we get beyond Rand's "point of libertarianism", then we can argue whether we agree with Ron more or Rand more. Until then, we must support Rand, as he's the only one of the two who can win.

I don't think Rand is quitee that close to Ron, but I agree with the point. Hence why I support Rand. I'd still prefer Ron though.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul is definitely anti-tariff.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/03/ron-paul/protectionism-vs-liberty/

Ron has mentioned tariffs in interviews more than a couple of times, as a way of funding the federal government.

Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-google_interview-19

 

[erowe1]

Ron has mentioned tariffs in interviews more than a couple of times, as a way of funding the federal government.

As I would expect anyone who is anti-tariff, like he is, to do.

 

[Christian Liberty]

As I would expect anyone who is anti-tariff, like he is, to do.

Huh? Can you explain this?

In my mind, if you're going to have "taxes", its better to have taxes that can at least be avoided by regular people. Using tariffs to fund the Federal government would at least mean that there is literally no taxation on trade with your own neighbors (Perhaps ignoring the situation where someone lives right on the border) and trade with anyone else in the United States. That's a huge improvement over having to pay rent to the government in order to live on your own land (property taxes) to breathe (Income taxes) or to engage in ANY trade (Sales taxes.)

 

[Occam's Banana]

But tariffs can be avoided by buying things in the US.

Actually, they can't be avoided that way. That's sort of the whole point behind so-called "protective" tariffs. And the same thing applies to "revenue" tariffs, too. In the end, a tariff is a tariff - and all tariffs have the same kinds of effects, regardless of the motivations behind them (though they may differ in the degree to which those effects manifest).

For example, if a 10% tariff is set upon imported widgets (whether to "protect" the domestic widget market or for generation of government "revenues"), then domestic widget sources have a 10% margin under which to raise their prices while still remaining price-competitive with respect to imported widgets. So domestic widgets could be jacked up, say, 9% in price and still be a better deal price-wise than foreign widgets - and that 9% would be "pure gravy" proftits for the domestic widget market. Of course, such a price increase would entail some lessening of demand - but if demand is sufficiently inelastic, profits will still go up. And, of course, these higher prices will "spill over" into related areas of the market, as well (e.g., companies that use steel will have to charge higher prices for their products when steel tariffs go up - and/or there can be other seriously deleterious consequences, such as increased unemployment in steel-using sectors). So the price-increasing (and other) effects of tariffs cannot be avoided by "buying American" ...

Whether tariffs are more or less odious & pernicious than other means of revenue generation (such as income, sales & property taxation) is subjective. Only one thing is certain: tariffs are market-distorting redistributions of wealth.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Tariffs are better because at least they can be avoided and aren't extracted directly from the citizenry. I'd ultimately like to see these abolished too, but I'd honestly be thrilled if that was the only kind of taxation we had to deal with.

In what sense are you not against them? Are you not morally opposed to them? Or are you simply saying you agree with decentralization?

I know, but I sure as heck am not one of them.

Well, you asked on the public forum. I suspect if you had only wanted her answer you would have PMed her.

Uh, I think it was pretty clear we were having a conversation. Which was why I quoted her. . It's not that I so much minded you asking me about my conversation with her, but to act so outraged with my response, was, well, rather peculiar.

I've deliberately decided not to use that term, personally, for strategic reasons primarily. I believe in the abolition of the State, however.

OK, so how are the roads being paid for? What if someone doesn't want to pay for them?

I still want to read Block's book on this, as its an issue I don't know nearly enough about. But just as a simple answer, why couldn't someone else build the roads, without being funded by private taxation? That strikes me as the obvious solution.

I agree that there are bigger issues to discuss first. But, if someone supports using aggression to raise money to build roads, I would consider that person to not really be a supporter of liberty.

Perhaps it's not wise to use all or nothing terms to describe another human being. Maybe take each issue by itself. Thoughts run through my head to describe people who take issue with having a few locally-owned roads running through a town and I too have to remember that I'm not being fair to label someone just because of a stance on one issue.

I'm not sure what definition of 'public" you use though, there might be a definition of "public" that would not involve such aggression so I'll give you a chance to propose one.

Here's the thing. I know some people enjoy having these conversations, but I don't. Rome is burning and I don't find it very useful to sit here and pummel my philosophical navel.

I sort of disagree on this. Ultimately, pragmatic arguments don't work. We need to stick to moral principles, or else our views are just as subjective as anyone else's. Hence why I am an "anarchist", because I stick to principle, all the time.

But not to reality. I mean this sincerely. We are not going to go from where we are now to some kind of anarchical utopia. I am not sure if it will ever be practical; not unless the nature of man changes. Some who seem to think that we can, refuse to get involved unless a candidate will stand up and profess their undying love for anarchy, regardless of whether everyone else runs away screaming because he/she is scarier than what we have now. Ron isn't an anarchist, but I will use him for a case in point. For example, When Ron would say he wanted to get rid of the CIA, FBI and all taxes, he was talking about what what should eventually happen. He wouldn't have done it overnight; nor would he have abolished the FED overnight. What I am saying is that he oftentimes mixed the messages of philosophy with what he could do as President and it made him come off, less good than he would have otherwise. He was scary to people. There were even long-time members of this forum, who had been big donors, who, during this last campaign, got the impression from Ron that he wouldn't defend the country. He no longer supports Ron AT ALL, because of it. Ron would have, of course, but he oftentimes didn't connect the dots for people. Saying something extreme and not explaining how it would work in reality land, doesn't convince people to back you; it runs them off. And we all know that today, about all the time they give candidates is enough for a soundbyte. They certainly do not give them time to explain more complex issues.

If Rand Paul is elected President, and fails, it will reflect poorly on our ideas, even if Rand doesn't actually follow those ideas, or is prevented from doing so by congress. That was ultimately my point, but looking back, I worded it really, really poorly. Sorry about that

Even if on the slim chance, Rand was elected President, one man wouldn't be able to turn things around by himself. He would need a supportive Congress and more than a term or two. There also has to be massive changes in what people view as the role of government, not to mention their character and overall morality. But, it would be a massive first step.

With anything difficult, there is always a chance it won't work out as ideally as you would like it to. But, if you didn't ever attempt something unless it was a sure bet, you wouldn't get much done in this world.

 

[LibertyEagle]

As I would expect anyone who is anti-tariff, like he is, to do.

Actually, Ron talked about the tariffs early in our country's history and he didn't appear to have a problem with them at all.

But, then again, some seem to believe our country is going to go from where we are to some utopia, with no steps in between. It's ridiculous and it makes our movement look out of touch with reality.

 

[erowe1]

Actually, Ron talked about the tariffs early in our country's history and he didn't appear to have a problem with them at all.

That's ridiculous. Of course he did. If you think he ever said that there ever have been or ever could be good tariffs, and not just that tariffs could be less bad than the income tax, please find the link.