[Video] Rand Paul speech @ Heritage on restoring the Founders' vision of foreign policy

[CaptLouAlbano]

Hi Capt, no feel free to jump in.

Of course you are right, I realize we can't snap our fingers and make it happen over night. What I'm asking LE to consider though is the hypothetical. What I think matters is deep down how we each individually feel about change. That is what will make someone effective in other areas of spreading the ideas, or not.

The strategy and methods when it comes to activisim and actually teaching others is a seperarte issue. But many are conflating theory with strategy/practice.

Understood. I think when it comes to the education aspect of what we do we do have to tread lightly, because we do not want people to shut down on us. Sure I would love to close all or most of the bases. But if I approach someone and lead with that, then I very well might be dead in the water. The best means of education is first listening and finding areas of common ground and going from there. I think most Republicans are very leery of the "policemen of the world" "make the world safe for democracy" "nation building" talk of the Wilsonians. If I start there with that, introducing more advanced concepts is easier.

 

[July]

Understood. I think when it comes to the education aspect of what we do we do have to tread lightly, because we do not want people to shut down on us. Sure I would love to close all or most of the bases. But if I approach someone and lead with that, then I very well might be dead in the water. The best means of education is first listening and finding areas of common ground and going from there. I think most Republicans are very leery of the "policemen of the world" "make the world safe for democracy" "nation building" talk of the Wilsonians. If I start there with that, introducing more advanced concepts is easier.

Well I would probably be one of the first to agree that brow beating people over the head doesn't work with everyone, or necessarily with most people. That's still a distinction over methods though.

A lot of the 'purists' on here are fond of saying that incrementalism toward freedom doesn't work, that it only (apparently) works in one direction toward tyranny.

Why is that true?

 

[TheGrinch]

Well I would probably be one of the first to agree that brow beating people over the head doesn't work with everyone, or necessarily with most people. That's still a distinction over methods though.

A lot of the 'purists' on here are fond of saying that incrementalism toward freedom doesn't work, that it only (apparently) works in one direction toward tyranny.

Why is that true?

Incrementalism absolutely works, it's been used to strip our freedom and benefit the corrupt gradually in many cases...

Further I can speak from experience that finding common ground first does work (was actually trying to find my first post here last night about my experience with this). I can't count the number of people that I got to open their eyes by starting with the issues that were easier to swallow, before hitting them too hard with the things that are tougher to accept.

I've been even more surprised by many I had given up on convincing, that ended up surprising me later after they invesitgated more on their own. Truth is contagious.

The great thing about liberty and truth is that there is common ground you can find with any political affiliation. Know your audience and you will have success.

 

[TheGrinch]

As to the argument, "incrementalism doesn't work", I think what they mean is that compromising may only lead to more compromising, but that doesn't have to be so. It's no coincidence that you'll never meet an ex-Ron Paul supporter. Once you go down that rabbit hole, you'll never view the world the same again.

Thus is why political strategy must NOT trump education and finding common ground, because those are how we will gain hearts and minds and take back the country, even if we have to do it incrementally. Change does not happen overnight, it took years to get into this mess, and it may take years to wake up enough people to get out of it, but make no mistake, people are waking up every day.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

A lot of the 'purists' on here are fond of saying that incrementalism toward freedom doesn't work, that it only (apparently) works in one direction toward tyranny.

Why is that true?

I'm an ancap purist at heart and I favor private arbitration and competing security services instead of govt courts and policing but I realize that that isn't in the cards until we peal away the decades (centuries?) of govt growth into our lives and that's why I stay actively involved in politics in hopes of being able to bring certain ideas into discussion down the line. There are different kinds of purists but the ones that stick out are the vocal ones that refuse to budge an inch and adapt to the climate at hand. I fully understand Rand's mode of operation and think it's been proven to be successful to spread the message of liberty that Ron put forth in terms that brainwashed, yet otherwise patriotic americans, can handle. Is that pure? No. Does it advance the liberty agenda? Yes. People have to be educated piecemeal in order to be able to take the test of liberty when they're ready. So, we keep inching them closer and in their own special time they'll be able to go into red pill territory. You can't beat them over the head with full blown pure voluntarism and expect that to get you many converts to your ideas even though you consider it the only moral way to operate, doesn't work effectively.

It's hard for me to not tell the vocal purists to get bent after all the time, effort and loads of cash I put into Ron's efforts and the thanks I get from attempting to help Rand further liberty is met with allegations of being a compromiser and other loathsome comments. Their horses aren't as high and mighty as they think they are and they know who they are.

 

[KingNothing]

Has any society ever greatly increased its "liberty-quotient" in a very short period of time without war or governmental collapse? Has any Democratic society ever increased it's freedoms rapidly? I can imagine a tyrannical state doing so, but not one that is ruled by its people.

Absent very dramatic events (fall of the Soviet Union, civil war, unconditional surrender after military conflict, etc), NOTHING happens quickly. We are not going to experience a "shock therapy" of Liberty. It isn't going to happen. Post all the quotes from history that you want, post all the words from Rothbard or Paul there are, they do not make it so. Those words are idealistic in a sense and pessimistic in others. Those words are informed by the willingness of people to settle or lose principles once they gain power. We will not do that. We will employ the tactics that the progressives and authoritarians have used to great effect -- gradual gains, drawing the line in the sand a bit further out with every piece of legislation or philosophical win. To do this, we need Rand Paul and many, many more like him in office, and a legion of financial and moral supporters behind them, working tirelessly to spread a pure message -in language that will be deemed "acceptable"- to win converts and slowly change the entire role of government in America.

 

[TheGrinch]

Has any society ever greatly increased its "liberty-quotient" in a very short period of time without war or governmental collapse? Has any Democratic society ever increased it's freedoms rapidly? I can imagine a tyrannical state doing so, but not one that is ruled by its people.

Absent very dramatic events (fall of the Soviet Union, civil war, unconditional surrender after military conflict, etc), NOTHING happens quickly. We are not going to experience a "shock therapy" of Liberty. It isn't going to happen. Post all the quotes from history that you want, post all the words from Rothbard or Paul there are, they do not make it so. Those words are idealistic in a sense and pessimistic in others. Those words are informed by the willingness of people to settle or lose principles once they gain power. We will not do that. We will employ the tactics that the progressives and authoritarians have used to great effect -- gradual gains, drawing the line in the sand a bit further out with every piece of legislation or philosophical win. To do this, we need Rand Paul and many, many more like him in office, and a legion of financial and moral supporters behind them, working tirelessly to spread a pure message -in language that will be deemed "acceptable"- to win converts and slowly change the entire role of government in America.

Exactly,if you don't agree with engaging in the political process like this, then simply continue to educate and wait for the house of card to fall down to say "I told you so".

But I have to wonder how many of the hard-lined idealists aren't younger or inexperienced in the workings of the world, because I remember how idealistic I was when I was getting out of college. They think all the realists are sell-outs, but part of growing up is realizing that the world doesn't work like you wish it would....

 

[July]

Grinch, something like that.

Leading with common ground, speaking softly, etc, those are all about methods/strategy though. I guess I'm speaking more to the philosophical.

Incrementalism, seems to only work in one direction, toward loss of freedom, why? I think that is because tyranny is about control. And the desire for control comes from an aversion to change. The amount of freedom achieved is proportional to the degree of aversion to change. So if you cannot accept the full implication of freedom in your heart, you are still partially enslaved, you'll always be chasing the need to control. Sooner or later the strategy then becomes the object.

So gut reaction, did Rand's speech, in your heart, feel like it was a step forward or backward (to you, not to the masses)? It's a practical step forward, yes, but... we shouldn't confuse these two things. That, I guess, is an open ended question, probably different for everyone.

 

[July]

Has any society ever greatly increased its "liberty-quotient" in a very short period of time without war or governmental collapse? Has any Democratic society ever increased it's freedoms rapidly? I can imagine a tyrannical state doing so, but not one that is ruled by its people.

Absent very dramatic events (fall of the Soviet Union, civil war, unconditional surrender after military conflict, etc), NOTHING happens quickly. We are not going to experience a "shock therapy" of Liberty. It isn't going to happen. Post all the quotes from history that you want, post all the words from Rothbard or Paul there are, they do not make it so. Those words are idealistic in a sense and pessimistic in others. Those words are informed by the willingness of people to settle or lose principles once they gain power. We will not do that. We will employ the tactics that the progressives and authoritarians have used to great effect -- gradual gains, drawing the line in the sand a bit further out with every piece of legislation or philosophical win. To do this, we need Rand Paul and many, many more like him in office, and a legion of financial and moral supporters behind them, working tirelessly to spread a pure message -in language that will be deemed "acceptable"- to win converts and slowly change the entire role of government in America.

Those are events/actions. All changes of that nature, IMO, are incremental...because things are constantly changing. I think the 'purists' are talking about principle, though. Incrementalism as a philosophy, etc.

 

[sailingaway]

Has any society ever greatly increased its "liberty-quotient" in a very short period of time without war or governmental collapse? Has any Democratic society ever increased it's freedoms rapidly?

No offense, but have they done so at all, absent an 'event' or 'upheaval'? magna Carta etc etc, all followed upheavals of some sort, political or rebellious.

But I don't really have a hard opinion about incrementalism, I'd have to think more about that. I just want to be able to trust that I know where a candidate actually stands and will stand when the chips are down and he is facing real pressure and advantage in another direction. Then I can figure all the rest out. Trust is the issue with me.

 

[TheTyke]

I'm idealistic as heck, and I love what Rand's doing. He is widening the coalition, changing hearts, bringing people in... and while he's doing that, we, the grassroots, need to keep pushing the discussion even further within our neighborhoods and political circles. Make our candidates look moderate, while moving the discussion as far as we believably can. But when it counts, rally and make sure our candidates get elected/re-elected so we can keep making progress!

 

[TheGrinch]

I'm idealistic as heck, and I love what Rand's doing. He is widening the coalition, changing hearts, bringing people in... and while he's doing that, we, the grassroots, need to keep pushing the discussion even further within our neighborhoods and political circles. Make our candidates look moderate, while moving the discussion as far as we believably can. But when it counts, rally and make sure our candidates get elected/re-elected so we can keep making progress!

Precisely, Ron wasn't the end-all-be-all for liberty, and neither is Rand.

Incrementalism does not mean abandoning education of core principles. "Make our candidates look moderate" is a very good way to put it. You cannot expect people to go from one extreme to the other without crossing the middle first. There's lots of undoing and spoon-feeding before a majority of people are ready to swallow some of the tougher parts.

 

[July]

I'm an ancap purist at heart and I favor private arbitration and competing security services instead of govt courts and policing but I realize that that isn't in the cards until we peal away the decades (centuries?) of govt growth into our lives and that's why I stay actively involved in politics in hopes of being able to bring certain ideas into discussion down the line. There are different kinds of purists but the ones that stick out are the vocal ones that refuse to budge an inch and adapt to the climate at hand. I fully understand Rand's mode of operation and think it's been proven to be successful to spread the message of liberty that Ron put forth in terms that brainwashed, yet otherwise patriotic americans, can handle. Is that pure? No. Does it advance the liberty agenda? Yes. People have to be educated piecemeal in order to be able to take the test of liberty when they're ready. So, we keep inching them closer and in their own special time they'll be able to go into red pill territory. You can't beat them over the head with full blown pure voluntarism and expect that to get you many converts to your ideas even though you consider it the only moral way to operate, doesn't work effectively.

It's hard for me to not tell the vocal purists to get bent after all the time, effort and loads of cash I put into Ron's efforts and the thanks I get from attempting to help Rand further liberty is met with allegations of being a compromiser and other loathsome comments. Their horses aren't as high and mighty as they think they are and they know who they are.

I think they are so vocal because they fear people who were once already accepting of a non interventionist policy when it was coming from Ron, now appear to be going backwards in their philosophy. I don't know if that is true or not, but I can see why. Some still have doubts freedom is possible.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I think they are so vocal because they fear people who were once already accepting of a non interventionist policy when it was coming from Ron, now appear to be going backwards in their philosophy. I don't know if that is true or not, but I can see why. Some still have doubts freedom is possible.

Typically, once someone "gets it" they don't revert back to something else unless they've sold out for whatever reason. I get that some people want to be stuck in part I of the liberty revival because it's comfortable to them. Either they fail to see the bigger picture or think engaging in insanity is the only acceptable way to promote liberty. The sound byte media will leave you in their dust and then your platform is significantly reduced. As in any off season, the majority of any supporters aren't in high gear so it's up to the hardcore to do the interim work. Some feel better when they have allies that make them feel better about not doing this or that or being able to significantly limit the amount of activism they perform. The point is, Ron's total message is being sold to the masses with a tuxedo on in hopes of bringing many more legions into our fold. People can't be so self-righteous to expect the learning curve for others is identical to theirs nor expect people to swallow the keynotes of liberty in full red pill fashion. However, this is where they like to preach that the message is being watered down. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. Conversely, you can repackage the existing liberty message but it's still the liberty message. Let's face it, who the hell do people think Ron is going to endorse for Prez coming up? duh. People still gonna hold out when the Man gives his approval? For those that have doubts about freedom being possible, they shouldn't be here and should go back to sleep.

 

[LibertyEagle]

LE, it's not about what the majority wants. It's about what you want. Would you rather a non interventionist foriegn policy, right now immediately, if you could? If you could snap your fingers and make it so? Or does the idea of slow change, like Rand is talking about, make you feel at ease? If it doesn't make you feel at ease, why not?

Rand's speech is the first time he has really made me feel uncomfortable. I don't mean to say, I won't vote for him and whatnot in the future. But it has given me pause to think.

Anyway I am planning to read the book he mentioned.

It actually IS about what the majority wants, because if they don't want what we do, we will not get it done.

But, since you asked what I want, I will tell you. Of course, I would like to snap my fingers and for us to have a noninterventionist foreign policy. But, just to make sure I am clear, I would still want to have a very strong national defense. Because I'm not naive enough to think that even if we stopped being busybodies, there still won't be some who will want to do us harm. Peace through strength makes sense to me, but only when we mind our own business.

So, if we cannot get the whole pie, immediately, I will gladly take 1/2 of it and once we get that, start working on the other 1/2. I think the most crucial thing is that we do not lose track of what our goals are. I think that might be what you are worried about. That we will get merged into the borg. I am not worried at all about myself doing that, but I am sure there will be some measure of it happening in our movement. There is not much we can do about it either, besides have a home base with our principles outlined in concrete. Perhaps something like Mises could become that. Unfortunately, the concrete approach (all or nothing) does not work in politics itself, because you end up with nothing.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Guys, you should know this better than I do. But, when playing football, does the offense always just run straight ahead, or do they oftentimes run sidewise and at angles, not to mention kick and throw the ball, instead of just running it? The all-or-nothing approach, to me, would be similar to handing the ball to a guy and telling him to run straight forward every time. And he's going to get wiped out and get nowhere. But, he kept his "principles".

Or, think about fighting a battle. Do you think Patton always put his soldiers out there and told them to move in a straight line and chest bump the enemy? That, to me, is what some around here want to do in politics. It doesn't work. It may make you smile, but it won't work there, any better than it would have for Patton.

I think a good name for this is strategy. The end goals are the same, but there will be many battles, on numerous fronts, before we accomplish them.

 

[TheGrinch]

Guys, you should know this better than I do. But, when playing football, does the offense always just run straight ahead, or do they oftentimes run sidewise and at angles, not to mention kick and throw the ball, instead of just running it? The all-or-nothing approach, to me, would be similar to handing the ball to a guy and telling him to run straight forward every time. And he's going to get wiped out and get nowhere. But, he kept his "principles".

Or, think about fighting a battle. Do you think Patton always put his soldiers out there and told them to move in a straight line and chest bump the enemy? That, to me, is what some around here want to do in politics. It doesn't work. It may make you smile, but it won't work there, any better than it would have for Patton.

I think a good name for this is strategy. The end goals are the same, but there will be many battles, on numerous fronts, before we accomplish them.

Clearly you've never watched Adrian Peterson run the ball.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

Has anyone been covering the plethora of Beltway knuckleheads who've lined up to speak out against Rand Paul's speech? Is there a thread about that? Let me know, if so.

I am incredibly annoyed by the Washington Post and National Review's articles slamming Rand. This seems to be a concerted, organized effort. Perhaps the military-industrial complex is mobilizing?

 

[radiofriendly]

I'm actually finally watching this whole speech right now...So far, amazing - can you imagine giving this speech in (or very close to) the heart of the beast? It's been a big week for our movement!

 

[radiofriendly]

Has anyone been covering the plethora of Beltway knuckleheads who've lined up to speak out against Rand Paul's speech? Is there a thread about that? Let me know, if so.

I am incredibly annoyed by the Washington Post and National Review's articles slamming Rand. This seems to be a concerted, organized effort. Perhaps the military-industrial complex is mobilizing?

I think those articles are having a limited impact in this environment. I think we can blunt those articles by just posting this video of Rand Paul's speech.

I did post a link on my site w/ some of these attack articles - mostly they are laughable.
http://iroots.org/2013/02/07/washington-post-oh-ht-rand-paul-cant-name-favorite-wars/