He's made comments that I'm not fond of. The thing about TSA employees, for example. I'd also like to see him propose amendments to the Constitution to defend religious freedom on the federal level, rather than attempting to pass a bill that would take the matter out of the hands of federal courts. He rarely talks about increasing immigration quotas. I suspect he would favor some drug prohibitionism on the local and state level. He's not pure, but he's the most viable we've got.
What does Ron have that Peroutka and Badnarik lacked?
- Thread starter Starks
- Start date
-
- Tags
- michael badnarik
stevedasbach
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,392
By itself that isn't enough. Neither Badnarik not Peroutka would have been included in debates even running as Republicans or Democrats (e.g. John Cox). Their campaigns would have been less effective at attracting new supporters for their respective parties/messages if they had run as D's or R's.
Ron has a track record as a 10-term Republican Congressman, which made it virtually impossible for him to be excluded from the televised Republican debates.
OceanMachine7
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 238
Yeah, the Libertarian Party gets a lot of anarchocapitalists who don't even believe in a lot of the legitimate functions of government outlined in the Constitution.
TVMH
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 707
Allow me to clarify: vis-a-vis the US Constitution, Dr. Paul is a pure libertarian.
I suppose without regard to the Constitution, a "pure libertarian" would actually be an anarchist?
I'm not flaming here, just trying to establish precise definitions.
DeadheadForPaul
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,283
1.) An R next to his name
2.) A stereotypical American sounding name
3.) 10 terms in office!
4.) The message
2.) A stereotypical American sounding name
3.) 10 terms in office!
4.) The message
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
Allow me to clarify: vis-a-vis the US Constitution, Dr. Paul is a pure libertarian.
I suppose without regard to the Constitution, a "pure libertarian" would actually be an anarchist?
I'm not flaming here, just trying to establish precise definitions.
nope. A "pure libertarian" would be a radical individualist. They still believe in a minarchy, however -Night Watchman State-. They're the gate keepers before you hit anarcho capitalism lol and let's not limit it to libertarian here. Extreme liberalism essentially is democratic socialism, and extreme (neo) conservatism is basically corporatism, serfdom. Every philosophy has their extremes
TVMH
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 707
nope. A "pure libertarian" would be a radical individualist. They still believe in a minarchy, however -Night Watchman State-. They're the gate keepers before you hit anarcho capitalism lol and let's not limit it to libertarian here. Extreme liberalism essentially is democratic socialism, and extreme (neo) conservatism is basically corporatism, serfdom. Every philosophy has their extremes
Word
You're describing minarchism more than libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalists can also be classified as libertarians. I'd say that anyone that agrees with the NAP can be called a libertarian, and people have different ideas about what exactly that means for the role of government, making them either minarchists or An-caps.nope. A "pure libertarian" would be a radical individualist. They still believe in a minarchy, however -Night Watchman State-. They're the gate keepers before you hit anarcho capitalism lol and let's not limit it to libertarian here. Extreme liberalism essentially is democratic socialism, and extreme (neo) conservatism is basically corporatism, serfdom. Every philosophy has their extremes
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
anarcho capitalists believe in a non voluntary government? first time I have heard of this! Libertarians believe in some sort of state.. ancaps go off the deep end and call for the abolishment of state
No, your mistake is assuming that to be a libertarian you have to believe in non-voluntary government.
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
and why not? ancaps believe in only a voluntary government
I think we have a disconnect here.
My opinion is that:
libertarian: anyone who agrees with the NAP.
An-caps: Agree with it and do not believe in involuntary government.
Minarchists: Agree with it, but think there should still be a Night Watchman state to defend life and liberty.
Thus, An-Caps can be considered libertarians.
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
to me, libertarianism is about individualism no matter the form of government that exists. miarchism><anarcho capitalism to me describes the level of government you want to exist. You want a small establishment? you're a minarchist. If you want nothing more than voluntary government, you might fit into the ancap category
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
and what of the consequentialists?
Right, so we're on the same page. Both minarchists and an-caps can be considered libertarians. You said that minarchism was the last stop on libertarianism before you get to An-Caps, and I'm saying that An-Caps are libertarians also.
They're a tricky fit. I have always preferred to refer to them as classical liberals rather than libertarians.
Johncjackson
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,764
Peroutka and badnarik have just about... nothing.
Dnt get me wrong, the (R) helps a lot, but RP actually has a 30+ year history of accomplishment and is much more well known and respected. And as much as some of his views are labeled "extreme"- he is a lot more mainstream.
In comparison to badnarik for example- Ron Paul didnt decide to run for POTUS as a 50 year old bachelor , unemployed programmer/skydiving/scout leader/whatever, with no Driver's License, tourng the country in a Kia.
I am less familiar with Peroutka, so I won't get too much into him. However, I know a lot of people in the CP who don't like him, and if he's "too much" for the CP, that's saying a lot. If someone is too out there to fit in the CP collection of theocrats, good luck with manstream America.
Dnt get me wrong, the (R) helps a lot, but RP actually has a 30+ year history of accomplishment and is much more well known and respected. And as much as some of his views are labeled "extreme"- he is a lot more mainstream.
In comparison to badnarik for example- Ron Paul didnt decide to run for POTUS as a 50 year old bachelor , unemployed programmer/skydiving/scout leader/whatever, with no Driver's License, tourng the country in a Kia.
I am less familiar with Peroutka, so I won't get too much into him. However, I know a lot of people in the CP who don't like him, and if he's "too much" for the CP, that's saying a lot. If someone is too out there to fit in the CP collection of theocrats, good luck with manstream America.
Johncjackson
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,764
He's a good guy and fine libertarian activist, but he was hardly presidential ( or even Congressional) material. This describes a lot of LP activists. They want to go straight int the POTUS, even if they can't even get 2% for State rep or cant even get elected to LNC,etc.
Similar threads
