Question to purists- Do you want progress?

[nbhadja]

How do you expect to make progress in America? Your strategy seems to be convert everyone to become paleoconservatives or libertarians and then elect an entire government full of Ron Pauls. Does that really sound realistic to you?

You are missing the big picture. America was not stolen in one day and will not be taken back in one day either. It was stolen incrementally. There wasn't just a surge of globalist wrong on everything politicians that suddenly were elected and took control of the government. They slowly shifted the political landscape. They didn't instantly create the Fed, end the gold standard, create heavy taxes, police the world, create the war on drugs all in one swoop.

By not understanding the value of electing politicians who at least are good in certain areas, only supporting Ron Paul purity level candidates, and equating politicians who have some good views in critical areas with bad on everything politicians (like equating trump to bush or hillary) you are making your efforts in vain. Your strategy is awful.

Thankfully most people don't have this view, which is why there is a surge of support for anti-trade anti-globalist and anti-immigration politicians etc in Europe and America. Brexit and the future certain fall of the European Union would not be possible with your mindset.

I supported Rand Paul for president first. He lost and normally I wouldn't have voted after that for the big 2 candidates...but I voted for Trump because he is not some puppet shill like McCain Romney or Bush. He has some good views.

Consider the following:

Hillary wants to antagonize Russia and basically build up a massive conflict further while Trump is friendly with Russia. Its possible the election outcome may have prevented a war. Is there no value in that for you?

Trump will crack down on illegal immigration and finally end open borders. No value in that? What about establishing voter ID laws? Huge improvements in free trade deals at min or repealing them? No value? Cutting taxes? Cutting welfare? Ending Obamacare (even if you think he will replace it with bad at the very least he will open competition by ending state lines, repealing the individual mandate etc). What about how Politicians like Bush and Hillary directly fund terrorists, while trump will end that. At the very least foreign aid will be cut down and other countries will have to pay us for any services. At best he will slash foreign aid significantly....will crack down on islam... campaign finance reform.... This can go on and on.

In football terms you are basically trying to throw a hailmary every drive , going for it on 4th down every time and only accepting drives that end up with 7 points with no regard to field position, time of possession, field goals, plays that go for intermediate or short gains.. going for that madden bomb on every play.

Some of the hardcore purists (not many though) are so extreme that they refuse to even support Rand Paul.

You don't seem to know how to get things done.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Thankfully most people don't have this view, which is why there is a surge of support for anti-trade anti-globalist and anti-immigration politicians etc in Europe and America.

No, thanks.

Trump will crack down on illegal immigration and finally end open borders. No value in that?

Nope. Not with what he has in mind.

What about establishing voter ID laws?

Nope.

Huge improvements in free trade deals at min or repealing them? No value?

Nope. Not with what he has in mind.

Ending Obamacare (even if you think he will replace it with bad at the very least he will open competition by ending state lines, repealing the individual mandate etc).

Nope. Not with what he has in mind.

will crack down on islam

No, thank you. Get out.

 

[otherone]

You are missing the big picture. America was not stolen in one day

Stolen from whom?

 

[CaptUSA]

You are missing the big picture.

Lol. The big picture?! I'm not a "purist" by any means, but I do understand moving towards or away from a goal. Rand Paul would be moving towards the right goal. Maybe not as fast as some would like, but definitely in the right direction.

When your goal is liberty, it is not achieved through protectionism, government spending projects, and stricter government controls. (Whether that be moar border force, moar government databases, moar campaign finance control, moar crack down on Islam [whatever that means], or moar State control of media)

Cutting foreign aid would be great! I doubt that we'll see that, but even if we did, the other costs to liberty are too great! You've got yourself convinced your taking baby steps towards liberty, but you're really fumbling the snap and losing yardage! It'd be better for us all if you'd just knelt!

 

[fcreature]

Is your definition of "purist" someone who doesn't like Trump?

This entire post is retarded. There are very few actual purists here. Plz delete this garbage thread.

 

[euphemia]

I ask this same question because some of the hardcore cannibiats thought I was some sort of traitor because I didn't just love Gary Johnson. They thought I had to abandon some of the most closely held convictions because Johnson said he would cut the budget 43%.

No. I'm not going to give up personal liberty or vote for someone who considers the right to live of minimal consequence.

 

[CaptUSA]

Is your definition of "purist" someone who doesn't like Trump?

This entire post is retarded. There are very few actual purists here. Plz delete this garbage thread.

The answer is YES. That's what they believe. It's the only way they can fit the cognitive dissonance into their heads. If you can't see how Trump is good for you, you must be a purist.

 

[CCTelander]

The answer is YES. That's what they believe. It's the only way they can fit the cognitive dissonance into their heads. If you can't see how Trump is good for you, you must be a purist.

Hey, he's a SUPER GENIUS "bad-ass American" "god emperor." I read it right here on RPF so it must be true. Right?

 

[phill4paul]

"Progress" is for Progressives, not "purists." As a "purist" I want regress.

 

[euphemia]

I don't think there is any such thing as a purist. For the American citizen, the fundamental liberties are defined in the Constitution. I think part of the problem is that there is almost nobody here who can conceive a life without big government, and they have no idea how big government is.

Personal liberty means I do not have to ask the government's permission to live out my constitutional freedom. At the same time, I understand that untangling the mess will take time. It's like a divorce. Long and complicated.

 

[Seraphim]

I don't think there is any such thing as a purist. For the American citizen, the fundamental liberties are defined in the Constitution. I think part of the problem is that there is almost nobody here who can conceive a life without big government, and they have no idea how big government is.

Personal liberty means I do not have to ask the government's permission to live out my constitutional freedom. At the same time, I understand that untangling the mess will take time. It's like a divorce. Long and complicated.

Good post.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

It's the only way they can fit the cognitive dissonance into their heads.

We all have cognitive dissonance; you have cognitive dissonance. Get over it!

It is perfectly reasonable to be optimistic that President Trump will cut the size of the national government over the next four years -- maybe even more than Rand would have!

It is also perfectly reasonable to be pessimistic and assume that President Trump will turn into a typical politician, break his promises, grow the government, and do nothing particularly interesting.

Neither of these positions require any cognitive dissonance, logic-ignoring, mental disease, insanity, nor anything of the kind.

 

[euphemia]

It's perfectly reasonable that Trump will lead Congress to do a lot of things we like. That's why we keep talking to our elected representatives. They are the ones who will ultimately pass the legislation. The era of asleep-at-the-wheel politics is over. We woke up Washington. Now we have to keep them in the crosshairs and be ready to ditch them if they don't do what we sent them to Washington to do.

 

[Root]

Muh Trump!

 

[Occam's Banana]

To paraphrase famous abolition "purist" William Lloyd Garrison:

We have never said that liberty will be achieved at a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.​

The OP makes the same mistake just about everyone who complains about so-called "purism" makes.

Namely, he thinks that "purism" is somehow opposed (rather than complementary) to "pragmatism" or "gradualism."

Here's what Ron Paul has to say about the matter (emphasis added):

Purism is Practical

Those who advocate ending, instead of reforming, the welfare-warfare state are often accused of being “impractical.” Some of the harshest criticisms come from libertarians who claim that advocates of “purism” forgo opportunities to make real progress toward restoring liberty. These critics fail to grasp the numerous reasons why it is crucial for libertarians to consistently and vigorously advance the purist position.

[...]

This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures. A gradual transition is the best way to achieve liberty without causing massive social and economic disruptions. However, we must only settle for compromises that actually move us in the right direction. So we should reject a compromise budget that “only” increases spending by 80 percent. In contrast, a budget that actually reduces spending by 20 percent would be a positive step forward.

Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position. This can actually increase the likelihood of taking real, if small, steps toward liberty. More importantly, the best way to ensure that we never achieve real liberty is for libertarians to shy away from making the case for the free society.

[...]

See here for the thread with the full article: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487693-Purism-is-Practical

And this was my response:

As is so often the case, Ron Paul is exactly and entirely correct ...

"Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position ..."

By definition, any compromise will always be a reconciliation between extremes (where an "extreme" is the full set of whatever a given side of a compromise actually wants, as distinct from what that side will actually be able to get). If gradualist reformers are to be effective, then for any reformative compromise to significantly skew our way, gradualist reformers must be "backstopped" by those who are willing and able to be more vocally absolutist and radical. Otherwise, the "spectrum of possibility" (so to speak) will be foreshortened, and gradualist reformism (rather than absolutist radicalism) will be the "extreme" upon which any compromise will be erected (to the dissatisfaction and disappointment of both gradualist reformers and absolutist radicals).

"This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures ..."

As Murray Rothbard emphasized, we should always keep in mind the critical fact that there is no necessary contradiction between "absolutism in theory" and "gradualism in practice." In fact, gradualism in practice is fine. It has to be, if only because "gradualism" is almost always the only means by which things will actually change. As the great abolitionist (and absolutist) William Lloyd Garrison noted: "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

But it is just as important to understand that acknowledging the place of gradualism in practice is NOT an excuse for eschewing absolutism in theory. Serious (indeed, fatal) problems arise when "absolutism in theory" is misguidedly discarded and "gradualism in practice" is promoted to "gradualism in theory." As Garrison also pointed out, "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."

Properly understood, "absolutism" (or "purism") and "gradualism" (or "pragmatism") should be regarded as complements, NOT as opposites.

Many absolutists and gradualists tend to forget this (assuming they ever understood it in the first place) ...
​

 

[PierzStyx]

I don't think there is any such thing as a purist. For the American citizen, the fundamental liberties are defined in the Constitution.

No they aren't. In fact, this idea was one that the Anti-Federalists most feared, was the idea that people would think their rights came from government or were defined by any legal document. There are no unfundamental rights. And your rights are almost limitless.

I think part of the problem is that there is almost nobody here who can conceive a life without big government, and they have no idea how big government is.

Such as thinking government grants us rights?

Personal liberty means I do not have to ask the government's permission to live out my constitutional freedom.

If the Constitution gives you rights then it can take them away too.

At the same time, I understand that untangling the mess will take time. It's like a divorce. Long and complicated.

Not really. You quit and walk away. Done. Finito. That simple.

 

[euphemia]

Did you not read what I wrote? The Constitution itself does not give rights. It says there are three inalienable rights endowed by the Creator: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. The government doesn't give any rights and it cannot take them away. The Constitution merely sets them out as the basis of law. The limits are on government and anyone else who seeks to take those rights away.

 

[phill4paul]

To paraphrase famous abolition "purist" William Lloyd Garrison:

We have never said that liberty will be achieved at a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.​

The OP makes the same mistake just about everyone who complains about so-called "purism" makes.

Namely, he thinks that "purism" is somehow opposed (rather than complementary) to "pragmatism" or "gradualism."

Here's what Ron Paul has to say about the matter (emphasis added):



See here for the thread with the full article: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487693-Purism-is-Practical

And this was my response:

As is so often the case, Ron Paul is exactly and entirely correct ...

"Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position ..."

By definition, any compromise will always be a reconciliation between extremes (where an "extreme" is the full set of whatever a given side of a compromise actually wants, as distinct from what that side will actually be able to get). If gradualist reformers are to be effective, then for any reformative compromise to significantly skew our way, gradualist reformers must be "backstopped" by those who are willing and able to be more vocally absolutist and radical. Otherwise, the "spectrum of possibility" (so to speak) will be foreshortened, and gradualist reformism (rather than absolutist radicalism) will be the "extreme" upon which any compromise will be erected (to the dissatisfaction and disappointment of both gradualist reformers and absolutist radicals).

"This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures ..."

As Murray Rothbard emphasized, we should always keep in mind the critical fact that there is no necessary contradiction between "absolutism in theory" and "gradualism in practice." In fact, gradualism in practice is fine. It has to be, if only because "gradualism" is almost always the only means by which things will actually change. As the great abolitionist (and absolutist) William Lloyd Garrison noted: "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

But it is just as important to understand that acknowledging the place of gradualism in practice is NOT an excuse for eschewing absolutism in theory. Serious (indeed, fatal) problems arise when "absolutism in theory" is misguidedly discarded and "gradualism in practice" is promoted to "gradualism in theory." As Garrison also pointed out, "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."

Properly understood, "absolutism" (or "purism") and "gradualism" (or "pragmatism") should be regarded as complements, NOT as opposites.

Many absolutists and gradualists tend to forget this (assuming they ever understood it in the first place) ...
​

Outstanding. +rep.

 

[Suzanimal]

Outstanding. +rep.

Double + rep. I would rep all of OB's posts but I don't want him getting a big head. Or,too big for his banana.

 

[PierzStyx]

Did you not read what I wrote? The Constitution itself does not give rights. It says there are three inalienable rights endowed by the Creator: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. The government doesn't give any rights and it cannot take them away. The Constitution merely sets them out as the basis of law. The limits are on government and anyone else who seeks to take those rights away.

I did read what you wrote. Perhaps you did not covey your meaning very well.



Also, the Constitution says nothing about your rights. And it doesn't refer to them as the basis of law.


It is the Declaration of Independence that says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration came a full ten years before the Constitution. And it was not designed to limit government. It was designed to expand the power of the government by replacing the Confederation of the Thirteen Sovereign Nation-States with one centralized bureaucratic government to regulate and control the everything.