Rand Paul has this big disadvantage with his core base that no other GOP candidate ever will

[cajuncocoa]

Is it really that hard to imagine? What if one of them reached out to pro choice groups and tried to compromise? Or even more so, congress was about to overturn Roe V Wade and Huckabee came out against it because there was some minor technicality he didn't like? Still think their base would be there?

That's a perfectly fair analogy to what Rand Paul has done to his anti-war base. None of the other candidates have the balls/stupidity to go so extremely against the wishes of their base. Is that maybe why it's hard to imagine?

Enthusiastic +rep.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Actually, I prefer Rand over Ron.

me too!

I would love to hear why.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Is it really that hard to imagine? What if one of them reached out to pro choice groups and tried to compromise? Or even more so, congress was about to overturn Roe V Wade and Huckabee came out against it because there was some minor technicality he didn't like? Still think their base would be there?

That's a perfectly fair analogy to what Rand Paul has done to his anti-war base. None of the other candidates have the balls/stupidity to go so extremely against the wishes of their base. Is that maybe why it's hard to imagine?

I'm coming back to this post because I keep thinking about what you've said. I remember that interview a while back...maybe a year or two...where Rand said: “I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot...I'm not a libertarian.”

Whether by accident or design, libertarians flocked to Ron...and we became a large part of Ron's base. Rand could have inherited that base, but I'm not sure he wanted it. I think he's actually afraid of inheriting the libertarian wing of his father's base.

Unfortunately, almost all other GOP voters see him as inheriting that base and catering to libertarians whether he wants it to be that way or not....a kind of "guilt by association" thing. So, he's damned if he does (want it) and damned if he doesn't.

As Carlybee said....the ball is in his court. He'd better decide.

 

[alucard13mm]

I don't agree.. I think libertarians are easy to rally. I think we were all expecting Ron Paul in a Rand Paul body. That was probably an unfair expectation placed upon Rand by us. We want RON, but we have Rand. Rand is still the best candidate we have, and we should work for him. He is not his Dad..... I'll give you that; but who do you want? Jeb Bush or Rand Paul?

Yep. Worse case scenario is..Rand is a true lesser of two evils. Considering the potential jeb or hillary.... rand is a good deal.

 

[goRPaul]

I concur with the article....I dont know how many times Ive seen someone say on here they are dropping rand over ONE position.

Its ridiculous really. Expecting perfection is quite dumb.

That's quite similar to why the average GOP primary voter didn't give Ron a chance. I heard a million times, "I like Ron Paul, but...". That said, we got spoiled the last two cycles. We really DID have the perfect candidate! Not literally, but as close as we're going to get in our lifetimes.

My point has always been that if Rand runs as a carbon copy of his dad, he's going to get his dad's results. His decisions to be a party man and to take more nuanced positions are REQUIRED if he wants a different result.

Do you know of any sites that support Rand Paul? That's what I was looking for when I came here, but I was wrong. I'm looking specifically for a pro-Rand site to hang out on and talk to other supporters. Anybody know of any, please post. Thanks.

This place is full of grumpy old men.

This comment hurts a lot, and it should. RPF is supposed to be an activist hub that welcomes new people. We used to be better than this. In fact, for the last couple years, this site has been little more than a news source to me; a Drudge Report with a better selection of articles and a hilarious picture thread.

Ron's chances of winning relied on this site. A huge portion of his success can be attributed to these forums. That's how important we are. Can we be that again for Rand?

 

[cajuncocoa]

This comment hurts a lot, and it should. RPF is supposed to be an activist hub that welcomes new people. We used to be better than this. In fact, for the last couple years, this site has been little more than a news source to me; a Drudge Report with a better selection of articles and a hilarious picture thread.

Ron's chances of winning relied on this site. A huge portion of his success can be attributed to these forums. That's how important we are. Can we be that again for Rand?

Golly, that depends on Rand and how far he's moves away from his father as we continue to move forward (speaking only for myself, of course.) I didn't join this site to support Rand...I joined this site to support Ron. Yes, I know that's over but i'm still not going to compromise my principles to support Rand just because he's Ron's son. (and I'm not saying that it's necessary for me to compromise my principles to support him at this point, so please keep your shorts on.)

 

[Chieppa1]

Ron Paul. My answer to Jack Hunter. If he ran now, he would be taking from Trump as the anti-Washington, truth telling candidate.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The likeness of libertarian politics to cat herding used to be cute and funny back when we were a trivial minority with no chance of success.

Now? ...not so much.

We need a purge, to remove the unherdable. Fortunately, Rand's candidacy is accomplishing that on its own, without having to hurl an formal anathemas.

The movement that will emerge from this cycle (whether Rand wins or not), will be larger, more cohesive, and better organized.

 

[T.hill]

The problem originates mostly from a tendency among libertarians to be petty moral absolutists. I don't think being a purist is bad per se, but I do think it's unwise to let ethical theory largely inform your politics rather than economics. Libertarians who argue mostly from a moral position tend to be naive and narrow minded, and it often leads to them viciously attack anyone who doesn't exactly share their sentiments. In other words many libertarians whose libertarianism is grounded exclusively in morality are nothing more than polemicists.

Some libertarians, both an caps and minarchists, take a more economic take whereas their opposition to the state is the result of their belief that it is always or almost always relatively more inefficient than the free market. The market isn't perfect and liberty will not necessarily lead to a utopian society, however when faced with feasible alternatives it is the pragmatic libertarian who points out that despite its flaws the market remains the best way to allocate scarce resources to their most desired use.

To be sure a moral framework is important and I mostly sympathize and personally agree with libertarian morality. However it is not always best to ostracize every other person for being a statist, simply because they don't initially recognize the truthfulness of your ethical understandings. Likewise you're not going to convince anyone by shouting "Taxation is theft!" at everyone, it's not that it isn't true it's more that it's unlikely to persuade anyone to your point of view.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The problem originates mostly from a tendency among libertarians to be petty moral absolutists. I don't think being a purist is bad per se, but I do think it's unwise to let ethical theory largely inform your politics rather than economics. Libertarians who argue mostly from a moral position tend to be naive and narrow minded, and it often leads to them viciously attack anyone who doesn't exactly share their sentiments. In other words many libertarians whose libertarianism is grounded exclusively in morality are nothing more than polemicists.

Some libertarians, both an caps and minarchists, take a more economic take whereas their opposition to the state is the result of their belief that it is always or almost always relatively more inefficient than the free market. The market isn't perfect and liberty will not necessarily lead to a utopian society, however when faced with feasible alternatives it is the pragmatic libertarian who points out that despite its flaws the market remains the best way to allocate scarce resources to their most desired use.

To be sure a moral framework is important and I mostly sympathize and personally agree with libertarian morality. However it is not always best to ostracize every other person for being a statist, simply because they don't initially recognize the truthfulness of your ethical understandings. Likewise you're not going to convince anyone by shouting "Taxation is theft!" at everyone, it's not that it isn't true it's more that it's unlikely to persuade anyone to your point of view.

Well said, +rep.

I've definitely noticed a correspondence between deontologists and purists on the one hand, and consequentialists and pragmatists on the other.

It's not that a deontologist must be a purist - that deontological ethics logically entails political purism - but the two modes of thought are natural bedfellows.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The problem originates mostly from a tendency among libertarians to be petty moral absolutists.

I'm going to cut off everything that followed this because everything else you said is just unnecessary noise. All I need to address is right there above.

Libertarians are for liberty and freedom. You don't compromise on that. Maybe you've heard the saying "being a little bit free is like being a little bit pregnant."

It's impossible, you're either pregnant or you're not...hence, you're either free or you're not. There's no middle ground. There's no compromise. Therefore, yes, we are moral absolutists (which you refer to as "petty.")

 

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^Reflects inability to distinguish between means and ends.

 

[Krugminator2]

^^^Reflects inability to distinguish between means and ends.

What do you mean? You aren't for freedom? You aren't for standing on principle? Never mind that there are numerous interpretations for what freedom means and infinite ideas about the best way to bring about freedom. The important thing is to stand strong and never give in, even if nobody has idea what that even means. You can't compromise on freedom like squishy Rand Paul. Because, you know, freedom, Ron Paul, principals, the Iraq, like such as.

 

[cajuncocoa]

What do you mean? You aren't for freedom? You aren't for standing on principle? Never mind that there are numerous interpretations for what freedom means and infinite ideas about the best way to bring about freedom. The important thing is to stand strong and never give in, even if nobody has idea what that even means. You can't compromise on freedom like squishy Rand Paul. Because, you know, freedom, Ron Paul, principals, the Iraq, like such as.

Thank you. It's good to know there are still a few who get it.

 

[Carlybee]

The likeness of libertarian politics to cat herding used to be cute and funny back when we were a trivial minority with no chance of success.

Now? ...not so much.

We need a purge, to remove the unherdable. Fortunately, Rand's candidacy is accomplishing that on its own, without having to hurl an formal anathemas.

The movement that will emerge from this cycle (whether Rand wins or not), will be larger, more cohesive, and better organized.

You think a forced purge is a liberty position? And how do you plan to accomplish that?

 

[cajuncocoa]

You think a forced purge is a liberty position?

Do you think this person stands for liberty? LOL

 

[Carlybee]

Do you think this person stands for liberty? LOL

No I just want him to bite his own tail.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What do you mean? You aren't for freedom? You aren't for standing on principle? Never mind that there are numerous interpretations for what freedom means and infinite ideas about the best way to bring about freedom. The important thing is to stand strong and never give in, even if nobody has idea what that even means. You can't compromise on freedom like squishy Rand Paul. Because, you know, freedom, Ron Paul, principals, the Iraq, like such as.

The subtle sarcasm is strong with this one...

You almost had me.

You think a forced purge is a liberty position? And how do you plan to accomplish that?

To your first question, a purge in this context means voluntary disassociation, and there's nothing unlibertarian in that.

To your second, as I said, there's no action required by we pragmatists; the purists will self-purge, as it were, by abandoning Rand.

I'm merely saying: good riddance.

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Libertarians are for liberty and freedom. You don't compromise on that. Maybe you've heard the saying "being a little bit free is like being a little bit pregnant."

It's impossible, you're either pregnant or you're not...hence, you're either free or you're not. There's no middle ground. There's no compromise. Therefore, yes, we are moral absolutists (which you refer to as "petty.")

Even the Constitution compromises on freedom. Read the Fourth Amendment. It sets the conditions upon which the government can violate your rights.

There's no such thing as total freedom. What we're fighting for here is the maximum amount of freedom we can achieve.

 

[Carlybee]

The subtle sarcasm is strong with this one...

You almost had me.



To your first question, a purge in this context means voluntary disassociation, and there's nothing unlibertarian in that.

To your second, as I said, there's no action required by we pragmatists; the purists will self-purge, as it were, by abandoning Rand.

I'm merely saying: good riddance.

May the odds be ever in your favor.