This movement is at a significant crossroads

[acptulsa]

Half-serious question: Have you ever made an optimistic or non-judgmental post? Just because you prefer a more "all or nothing" approach does not mean that quickly closing down 90% of bases and leaving the rest for another debate would somehow be the end of this movement...if that were even what Rand would propose.

Make no mistake: I'm no advocate of "baby steps," and I prefer Ron's approach to Rand's, but I'm not going to go out of my way to crap all over someone if they [might] want to knock out the easy spending/bases/etc. first to get a foothold, either...IF that's even what Rand would propose. Moreover, I'm certainly not going to bash someone based on a mere guess of what he'd propose. Sheesh.

This.

Dems don't even give lip-service to liberty issues. At least the GOP pretends to want a free market and less government.

What Democrats are you speaking of? Obama? The Democratic rank and file cares very much about liberty issues.

For years I argued that just a few Libertarians in Congress would make a big difference beyond their numbers, as they would vote with Democrats on civil liberty issues (warrants, wiretapping, prohibition) and Republicans on issues involving free markets and reducing government. Back then, it would have worked, too. Of course, 'back then' was before 9/11 made everything go completely haywire and we wound up with Democrats voting for crap like the PATRIOT Act. Now both parties seem past salvage and past salvation.

Seems to me we, of all people, should be seeing through this false left/right crap. We still have a little way to go.

The ONLY obstacle here great enough to cause failure is people's emotional unwillingness to have anything to do with the Republican Party...oh, they're too corrupt, too tainted, too dirty, blah blah, and we'll get the taint on us and end up just like them. (The latter is untrue, because unlike every other political movement ever, each of us have firm principles we're unwilling to compromise; we each differ on exactly what they are, but we present a stark contrast to every other political movement in the history of mankind, which has been based entirely on subjective utilitarianism in the pursuit of some abstract goal or religion.)

I agree with every part of your excellent post but this. Unless you're including us as part and parcel of the original American Revolution, and consider us merely a continuation of that. In which case I agree with this too.

 

[jkr]

they are already BOTH focused on the liberty mvmt...if we fly a standard, they will have something to parade around while they attack us-see the "tea party"

take them over, then destroy BOTH "major" parties

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Half-serious question: Have you ever made an optimistic or non-judgmental post? Just because you prefer a more "all or nothing" approach does not mean that quickly closing down 90% of bases and leaving the rest for another debate would somehow be the end of this movement...if that were even what Rand would propose. Is it? I don't know, and as far as I'm concerned, it sounds like you're just bringing up Rand out of the blue for the sole sake of bashing him with melodramatic pronouncements.

Yes, I'm familiar with Ron Paul's quote in your signature, and he's correct that the state has an intense hunger and tendency to steadily grow, but he didn't exactly rigorously back up his assertion that liberty "cannot" be regained incrementally. This mentality is extremely popular among hardcore libertarians, yet it's little more than unsubstantiated dogma, because showing the tendency of government to grow in the absence of an organized effort to scale it down to zero does not prove the impossibility of such an organized effort to work. (No, the establishment Republican Party's failure does not even remotely count, because they have no earnest libertarian or limited government ideology whatsoever.) This whole attitude is based not on logic or reason but on an emotional revulsion to the idea of incrementalism...even huge "leaps and bounds" incrementalism.

Make no mistake: I'm no advocate of "baby steps," and I prefer Ron's approach to Rand's, but I'm not going to go out of my way to crap all over someone if they [might] want to knock out the easy spending/bases/etc. first to get a foothold, either...IF that's even what Rand would propose. Moreover, I'm certainly not going to bash someone based on a mere guess of what he'd propose. Sheesh.

I got the 75 number from Doug Wead, it's not some emotional, knee-jerk reaction to Rand Paul.

I oppose the foreign policy because it is immoral, not because it is too big or inefficient. Starting at a position of keeping 75 bases open around the world would leave the worst bases open (hot-zone bases), and would assuredly lead to a final result of having many hundred more still in operation.

 

[Okie RP fan]

I prefer an emerging third party that can compete at the national level every election, starting with perhaps the Independent party, then working our way to currently "smaller" parties such as the Libertarian, or Constitution parties.

However, in order to do so, we must inject our ideas into the existing parties. And we need to promote third parties however we can. If it means registering Democrat, do it. Republican, do it.

We MUST play their game to an extent in order to achieve a more fair process that gives the PEOPLE more options.

 

[paulbot24]

Rand Paul
Liberty candidate.......................check
Appeals to GOP base..................check
Appeals to independents.............check
Can refute neoncons..................check
Necessary television "charisma"....check

I believe we have our solution. (Conveniently, our "President Paul" chant still works too.)

 

[Mini-Me]

I got the 75 number from Doug Wead, it's not some emotional, knee-jerk reaction to Rand Paul.

Doug Wead, as in, not Rand Paul? Regardless, you still brought Rand up out of the blue to bash him.

I oppose the foreign policy because it is immoral, not because it is too big or inefficient.

Holy crap, you do? You oppose empire because it's immoral? You must be the only one on the forum! Now I totally understand, because I cannot POSSIBLY imagine someone who opposes an imperial foreign policy for moral reasons thinking that eliminating 90% of the bases in a fell swoop would help reduce current and future death and destruction.

The vast majority of people here oppose war and empire primarily for moral reasons. This includes not only hardcore libertarians - such as myself - but a whole boatload of anti-federalists, Constitutionalists, and even paleocons ("just war" theory and all that). Besides, the "too big" and "inefficient" aspects impact moral issues as well, because the way things are going, a petrodollar collapse might result in World War III. This is less likely now that we dodged a bullet (no Mitt Romney), but it could still happen, so cutting spending just might be the way to prevent a nuclear holocaust.

Starting at a position of keeping 75 bases open around the world would leave the worst bases open (hot-zone bases), and would assuredly lead to a final result of having many hundred more still in operation.

The first part is correct: The hot-zone bases would remain if we cut back to 75, because it's harder to convince people to close them. (It might be easier after the others are closed though, because, "See? The world didn't end.") That's no excuse not to take what we can get when we can get it: If someone thinks we can eliminate all but 75 immediately and you think we can eliminate all of them immediately, then great...but for Pete's sake, cut out the melodrama about anyone disagreeing with your analysis being the "end of the movement."

Doug Wead may believe that campaigning on cutting back to zero immediately would risk no cuts at all, due to voter rejection...and if he believes this, he might be right. If we cut down to 75, then 35, then 10, then zero, and we keep up the pressure, we're eventually going to get rid of all of them. The risk is that we might be shooting too low, in which case we could have gotten rid of all of them sooner before more people died.

I can understand the fear that if we aim to cut down to 75 in one step we'll only actually cut down to 200 in one step...but that is a practical matter, and there's a flip side to that coin: If we try for all of them at once, fail utterly, try again, fail utterly, and keep trying and failing utterly, then we will have gotten rid of none, and more people will keep being killed over and over and over due to our stubborn insistence on perfection in the face of pure evil. In the meantime, we might have made it to zero by then if we had taken another path. NONE of us no for sure where the optimal radicalism/gradualism balance is for getting to zero as quickly as possible: We all have our opinions, but no one knows for sure.

In short, radicalism vs. incrementalism/gradualism is not always a moral issue, at least with respect to the NAP. Most of the time, it is a strategic disagreement between people with similar or even identical morality trying to determine just how much violence and coercion they can eliminate in any given step. You implicitly conceded this the moment you supported Ron Paul, because even in 2008, he did not run on the platform of "abolish the state immediately."

I believe in shooting as high as reasonably possible, and I believe eliminating all the bases in a single term is reasonably possible given the right political circumstances...but if someone else genuinely believes otherwise, I'm not going to sit quietly while people crap all over him like he's some kind of poison pill. If someone else runs for President under a genuine platform of reining in the state as much as he thinks he can in every possible area (without expanding it anywhere), I'm sure as hell not going to say, "I'd go farther, so he's the death of the movement," and stand aside out of spite while he loses to Bomby McCrazy. THAT's the kind of attitude that could lead to the death of the movement.

Everyone has their litmus test, and I will not go out of my way to support anyone who would increase government in virtually any area, with case-by-case exceptions regarding the contentious abortion and border issues. The exceptions here introduce an element of risk, but practical concerns necessitate them, or I could have never supported anyone, including Ron Paul. When it comes to voting alone, I'll vote for the best candidate available if there's a clear best...and abstain otherwise. Some lean more toward abstaining for reasons of moral responsibility, and I can respect that as long as they aren't too judgy toward others. Some people are willing to further compromise, which I do consider increasingly dangerous. For instance, I'm not convinced that Ted Cruz is an authentic liberty candidate or worth all the effort spent on him...but time will tell. Besides, many here are Constitutionalists anyway, and they abide by their own hard principles (though I'm not sure if Cruz meets that standard or not...). Some people outright refuse to support or vote for anyone unless they'd go "really far, really fast," which I kind of consider pointless and counterproductive when the choice is between someone who wants to incrementally reduce government in every area vs. someone who wants to increase it in some areas (or every area)...but to each their own. People can abstain if they want, when they want.

Nobody has to support anyone...that's not my concern. My concern is that the extreme judgmentalness toward anyone who isn't "radical enough" in terms of rhetoric or timescale is getting absolutely ludicrous. Murray Rothbard was a champion of radicalism...and yet even Murray Rothbard would be ASHAMED at how libertarians are behaving today. If you think a liberty candidate isn't radical enough, don't eat them alive and do everything you can to discourage people. Instead, prove you can do better.

 

[paulbot24]

/\/\/\ Well said sir.

 

[Paul4Prez]

Yes, we can support the most pro-liberty candidate in the Republican primary, then switch to 3rd party in the general if we don't win, and it's the best option.

Very few people vote in the primaries. 10 million votes would win the nomination. We can all do the math. A third party candidate gets ignored by the media, unless you can find a big time pro-liberty billionaire. But win the Republican nomination, and you start out with 40 million automatic votes and endless media attention.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

I think we need to come up with a plan to support a third party candidate and we need to do start on it now. Here are two articles I find interesting -

http://www.infowars.com/2012-us-elections-the-people-have-spoken-no-confidence/

http://www.infowars.com/forget-1-99-or-47-it-is-the-turn-of-the-70-to-be-pissed/

To put it simply, our target needs to be the large chunk of the population that doesn't vote. We need to get the grassroots movement on the ground and get money bombs lined up. We'll also need to use alternative media and word of mouth because the MSM won't help.

Probably the first thing we need to do is get a candidate we can throw our support behind - preferably a liberty minded veteran. It would be nice if Ron Paul would endorse a third party candidate, but that might not be probable if Rand is planning on running. The problem with Rand is that I don't see the GOP getting behind him. They've done too much damage to our movement and disenfranchised too many people. Everything I've heard come out of Republican's mouth's on T.V. indicates to me that they have absolutely no clue on why they lost the election. They aren't listening to us or the Tea Party. A lot of them don't like Ron and I don't think they'll let Rand get the nomination either, so I really think we should go with third party.

 

[Mini-Me]

I think we need to come up with a plan to support a third party candidate and we need to do start on it now. Here are two articles I find interesting -

http://www.infowars.com/2012-us-elections-the-people-have-spoken-no-confidence/

http://www.infowars.com/forget-1-99-or-47-it-is-the-turn-of-the-70-to-be-pissed/

To put it simply, our target needs to be the large chunk of the population that doesn't vote. We need to get the grassroots movement on the ground and get money bombs lined up. We'll also need to use alternative media and word of mouth because the MSM won't help.

Probably the first thing we need to do is get a candidate we can throw our support behind - preferably a liberty minded veteran. It would be nice if Ron Paul would endorse a third party candidate, but that might not be probable if Rand is planning on running. The problem with Rand is that I don't see the GOP getting behind him. They've done too much damage to our movement and disenfranchised too many people. Everything I've heard come out of Republican's mouth's on T.V. indicates to me that they have absolutely no clue on why they lost the election. They aren't listening to us or the Tea Party. A lot of them don't like Ron and I don't think they'll let Rand get the nomination either, so I really think we should go with third party.

Leveraging non-voters in a third-party strategy is nearly impossible: Third parties have been around forever, there's one for nearly every ideology, and yet after all this time, the non-voters still haven't seen fit to care. A highly organized GOTV program specifically focused on third parties hasn't been tried before, but if it's too narrow, it too closely resembles things that HAVE been tried before (see the LP and the last 40 years), and if it's too broad, you run into the fragmentation issues I was talking about a few posts back. More importantly, the vast majority of non-voters are not abstaining from a feeling of disenfranchisement anyway. The vast majority of non-voters are completely apathetic and have no comprehension of how politics and government affect their daily lives, and convincing them to care is like pulling teeth. Surely you know some.

Anyway, you seem to be missing the point of the GOP strategy: It's not about hoping and praying that the GOP leadership accepts Rand, and it goes without saying they won't. With respect to Presidential elections, the point of the GOP strategy is to take over the rest of the state parties and replace the RNC over the next few years, so WE become the leadership before 2016, and so WE set the rules. It's doable with activists alone, and what's more, it's our best shot at a national donor infrastructure for taking Congress...which is absolutely crucial to any long-term political strategy.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

Leveraging non-voters in a third-party strategy is nearly impossible: Third parties have been around forever, there's one for nearly every ideology, and yet after all this time, the non-voters still haven't seen fit to care. A highly organized GOTV program specifically focused on third parties hasn't been tried before, but if it's too narrow, it too closely resembles things that HAVE been tried before (see the LP and the last 40 years), and if it's too broad, you run into the fragmentation issues I was talking about a few posts back. More importantly, the vast majority of non-voters are not abstaining from a feeling of disenfranchisement anyway. The vast majority of non-voters are completely apathetic and have no comprehension of how politics and government affect their daily lives, and convincing them to care is like pulling teeth. Surely you know some.

Anyway, you seem to be missing the point of the GOP strategy: It's not about hoping and praying that the GOP leadership accepts Rand, and it goes without saying they won't. With respect to Presidential elections, the point of the GOP strategy is to take over the rest of the state parties and replace the RNC over the next few years, so WE become the leadership before 2016, and so WE set the rules. It's doable with activists alone, and what's more, it's our best shot at a national donor infrastructure for taking Congress...which is absolutely crucial to any long-term political strategy.

Maybe the non-voters haven't cared because they didn't think they stood a chance. The best example is Ross Perot. He actually got a lot of support because he was able to get into debates. We also have alternative media which we've only just got recently. There's a better opportunity now than there ever has been for a third party candidate. We can get a big chunk of them to vote if there is enough momentum.

As far as the GOP strategy, I think it would take a lot longer than 2016 to take over. This is something we should be doing anyway though in addition to my proposal. People need to start getting more proactive in the political process I agree.

 

[nasaal]

I would rather a third party. Sorry but 2 party politics seems a broken idea to me. Two party monopoly is subject to no one. Because they can be pretty much the same(they are) and even if people stop going to vote in mass, they still get the remaining votes and win anyway.

 

[CTRattlesnake]

To the person referencing the Ross Perot campaign in 1992, remember that Perot actually DROPPED OUT of the race in the summer, after he was leading in a bunch of polls against Bush and Clinton. He re-entered the race and still pulled the 15% needed to get into the debates.

His campaign shows that a third party candidate that is well funded and given enough attention can be successful. I truly believe he would have won if he stayed in for the entire thing, but there is no way of knowing for sure.

The American people want another voice in politics but too often they 1, dont know who that voice is, and 2, the voice is not close to being funded enough to win.