Republican hatred of Ron Paul

[supermario21]

And you seriously think Rand wouldn't have voted for that? Ron actually regrets that vote, while Rand stil thinks it was a good idea. Rand, on the other hand, supports sanctions and supports military intervention for "America's vital interests." Ron just wants to bring everybody home.

Rand only says he would have supported it because he thought it would be a temporary fight, not a document used to have a worldwide battlefield.

 

[sailingaway]

That's a good article, if short. It IS very telling that they jump way past 'disagreement' to 'crazy'. No need to protest so much if a logical argument will do.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Rand only says he would have supported it because he thought it would be a temporary fight, not a document used to have a worldwide battlefield.

While there's probably some truth to this, Ron has also pretty clearly condemned the "War on terror." Rand says that we need a "War on Radical Islam." Ron would probably call Rand out if they weren't related. Other than being broadly pro-liberty the two really aren't very alike.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Rand only says he would have supported it because he thought it would be a temporary fight, not a document used to have a worldwide battlefield.

That encapsulates Rand's practical approach, love it or hate it. Share the same rhetoric, and to some extent the same mentality as the enemy, including some superficial votes when in office. The point is to neutralize the neo-cons or perform harm reduction over the damage they do. The vote on the sanctions (bad, but doesn't need to lead to invasion and escalation) puts him on the same side of the table as the enemy, from which position he can reach more of them and turn the tide.

This was not possible using the full fledged principled, confrontational stance of Ron, which was always going to have a roof as to how many rank and file Republicans could be reached. The question remains, has Rand tactically compromised enough that he can rest on the deposit he has built up? And, is Rand really a mole on our side, or will he ultimately fold into a full neo-con on war issues?

 

[Sujan]

Essentially, Ron Paul message was one of liberty but also self-responsibility.
Most people would like the first idea, but to be self-responsible? Whoa.

That’s a tough message to convey, because most people want something like an anymous government institution to take care of things.
And that is why they vote socialist. It’s the same anywhere on the planet.

This the reason why a purely libertarian society is utopian. But I hope Rand Paul will introduce some libertarian ideas in the White House in 2017.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Essentially, Ron Paul message was one of liberty but also self-responsibility.
Most people would like the first idea, but to be self-responsible? Whoa.

That’s a tough message to convey, because most people want something like an anymous government institution to take care of things.
And that is why they vote socialist. It’s the same anywhere on the planet.

This the reason why a purely libertarian society is utopian. But I hope Rand Paul will introduce some libertarian ideas in the White House in 2017.

It seems utopian, but that's because statism is so ingrained into culture. You know, as recently 400 years ago, the typical Westerner would have said society without chattel slavery and/or an intermingling of races was utopian. Turns out it wasn't true. There are a lot of interesting and encouraging trends out there like bitcoin which make me believe that even if society isn't "officially" libertarian, it would function like one because most or all activities could be done without the regime's knowledge. I've come to the conclusion that making the regime irrelevant through independence is more probable and practical than any political means.

What's really utopian is expecting a "limited" government to stay limited for any longer than a generation at best.

 

[Brett85]

Rand says that we need a "War on Radical Islam."

No, that simply isn't true. Rand said that radical Islam is a threat, and that we might need to support a policy of containment in regards to radical
Islam. He never said that he supports a "global war on radical Islam."

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Why do conservatives call Ron Paul crazy instead of just disagreeing with him? Would you shed some light on this?

Lol.

 

[sailingaway]

Lol.

^^yep.

 

[WM_in_MO]

Anyone got any other ideas for Lew Rockwell Island and what it ook like and how it would be governed and organized?

Lew should jump at the idea and can get Ron to help raise the funds. Why waste time organizing conferences all over America when we can have our own island with a 100% educated population? Conferences will not be necessary as we would all be fluent in Rothbard and Hayek. Think of the efficiency savings. Business opportunities could be presented by people visiting our little island to wonder and marvel at the only anarchist state in the World with Ron Paul as president.

We could sell our own passports and citizenship. It could be quite lucrative actually. All profits can be used to build up gold reserves and to sustain the island forever

Clearly you are a regime friendly to terrorism, therefore we are required to liberate the shit out of you.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Wait, how can you have an "Anarchist state"? "Anarchist government" maybe (My church has a government but it ain't a state) but anarchy is defined by abolition of the state.

 

[sailingaway]

Wait, how can you have an "Anarchist state"? "Anarchist government" maybe (My church has a government but it ain't a state) but anarchy is defined by abolition of the state.

I think we're just daydreaming here.....

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think we're just daydreaming here.....

I'm not even an anarchist (I'm not very far from it, but I'm still not.) But an anarchist state literally can't exist. Its like daydreaming about a square circle, lol.

+1.

 

[Carson]

I think this is true.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/03/mailvox-republican-hatred-of-ron-paul.html

Stickwick wonders why conservatives react in such a stereotypically liberal manner to Ron Paul:

I have a question about the conservative perception of Ron Paul. Rachel Lucas seems like a reasonable right-of-center person whose political views are moving towards libertarianism. In fact, she now refers to herself as a libertarian. However, she still hangs on to the idea of American interventionism. In a recent post she criticizes McCain for his criticism of Rand Paul and for his overly-interventionist policy, but agrees with Ace that *some* interventionism is necessary:

I don't agree with it, but at least their position is stated reasonably. What I find odd is how her commenters are using this as an opportunity to dump all over Ron Paul. Here's a typical example:

"For the record, I cannot STAND Ron Paul. Fiscally he makes sense, but in every other conceivable way he's a senile, batshit crazy old fuck."

Why do some right-of-center people get so vitriolic about Ron Paul? They go right past "I strongly disagree with his ideas on foreign policy," and straight to "crazy old fuck." This is exactly the sort of thing they denounce when the left gets personal in its attacks or calls right-of-center ideology a "mental disorder."

Why do conservatives call Ron Paul crazy instead of just disagreeing with him? Would you shed some light on this?

It's not at all hard to understand why so many conservatives hate Ron Paul with all the fury of a thousand suns. The reason is that he shames them for their hypocrisy. He reveals the inconsistency in their non-conservatism. He forces them to confront the fact that they are not the proponents of small government and liberty they believe themselves to be.

Big government, international interventionist, and monetarist "conservatives" hate Ron Paul for exactly the same reason the Pharisees and Sadducees hated Jesus Christ. Because he exposes their intrinsically false nature to themselves. And the reason they dismiss him as crazy instead of responding rationally to the arguments he presents is because they know they cannot do so without losing.

I think when we call people names like this it is often more a reflection of ourselves. If you find yourself doing it, it is often time to step back and take a look at yourself.

Looking at yourself is one thing. To look into someone else's motives is another.

I would hate to have to look into these examples on a case by case basis. I'm pretty sure though that it has nothing so much to do with Ron Paul.

Except maybe for being so right.

 

[eleganz]

We all know this is mentality is out there, why are we worrying about what the haters think instead of discussing ways to reach out to those that aren't siting on their hands and bitching all day?