Where do we go from here.........

[Brian4Liberty]

...
This movement ended on 7 June 2012 when Rand endorsed Romney.
...
We are not going to forget that. We're not going to forget that his 17 hour filibuster condensed to "you can't drone strike citizens unless you filled out some paperwork".

It's true that he's doing great things with Fauci right now but that puts him roughly on par with Ted Cruz going after Garland.

Rand is not who you say he is no matter how many times you say it and we are absolutely not supporting him to the degree you wish. Rand was the golden child who was set up to inherit everything and he kicked it - and us - to the curb. He's doing fine without us so we're moving on.

You use “we” and “us” when you are talking about yourself. Many people here still support Rand, especially in the Rand Paul Forum. He is easily one of the best in Congress. You are free to your own opinion, and we have beaten this dead horse before. If Rand hasn't done exactly what you wanted him to in every instance, then you are free to not participate in any support of him. Nobody is perfect.

Rand like most people (besides me, and maybe Ron) is not perfect.

If however we had 100 Rand's in the Senate and 400 Rand's in the House and a Rand in the Oval.... the country would be in really fucking great shape don't ya think?
...

Similar to Rand would be good. For some reason, hundreds of identical clones running the nation is disturbing (even though the vast majority already are ideological clones, controlled by the same special interests.)

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Here are a couple of relevant threads:

Mises Caucus Coup D’Etat

Support the Mises Caucus​

The Mises Caucus is trying to take over the LP and make it a vehicle for continuing the Ron Paul Revolution.

And ironically, they're getting the same kind of pushback and shenanigans from the LP establishment that Ron Paul supporters got from the Republicans - denunciations from "woke" leftarians and "libertarian socialists", resistance and dirty tricks from the "big fish in a little pond" types, and so forth. (I might start a thread cataloging these if there is enough interest and I can find the time.)

I can only speak for myself, but I support this effort!

 

[Invisible Man]

Related, Massie recently seeked input on a conceptual new "Contract with America" for the GOP in 2022, let's see if he drive something.

Some thoughts...

Here are a couple that shouldn't even be controversial. But for the DC establishment they'll be downright radical. If the GOP commits to these, not only will it win them big points with voters across the political spectrum, but it will put them on the hot seat to have to follow through:
1. No votes on any bills or amendments until the public has had time to read them in their entirety.
2. No votes on bills that include anything outside of the scope of the one issue the bill is for.

 

[Occam's Banana]

]I also am coming up blank when I search on Mises Mesh Network.
@Occam's Banana seems way more involved with LPMC - wanna jump in here?

Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Mises-Caucus&p=7070579&viewfull=1#post7070579

ETA: The Mises Mesh Network was actually talked about by Michael Hesse (the emcee of the event and a co-founder of the Mises Caucus). He described it during his follow-up to a question for Rechtenwald. His remarks are at the 31:10 mark in the Rechtenwald video in the post I linked to.

 

[CaptUSA]

The Mises Caucus is trying to take over the LP and make it a vehicle for continuing the Ron Paul Revolution

That's great and I wish them the best of luck. I left the LP in the '90's because of all of the infighting and weird power struggles. Words like "take over" and the division into smaller and smaller caucuses cause me concern. I've said it before that the LP party organization is still an organization, subject to organizational flaws and drama.

I think it's really going to take a unifying figure, or at least a unifying message, to come out of that muck.

One of the best things about Ron Paul was that he packaged liberty as a whole - something that everyone could get behind. The LP, for as long as I can remember, has been focused on one brand of liberty or another. And then, when one brand gains the reins, the supporters of the other brands get angry and drop their support.

If the Mises Caucus "takes over", it'll just splinter off support; but if they can find a unifying message that can be accepted by the other factions, it could be good for all.

Where is Robert the Bruce to unite the clans??

 

[ClaytonB]

Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives.

All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you.

Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had not cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves?

You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them; you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows — to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free.

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.

(Etienne de la Boetie, The Politics of Obedience)

Secession and the Production of Defense -Jörg Guido Hülsmann
[Chapter 11 of The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production, edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2003), pp. 369–413.]

In particular, read about "originary secession" in this article...

 

[fisharmor]

You use “we” and “us” when you are talking about yourself.

I had understood the question to be "where do we who participated in the Revolution go from here".
What's he doing or asking us to do that is in any way comparable to what was going on 10 years ago?
I'm not shit-stirring here : I genuinely want to know what it is that recommends him as the new "Robert the Bruce".

 

[Occam's Banana]

That's great and I wish them the best of luck. I left the LP in the '90's because of all of the infighting and weird power struggles. Words like "take over" and the division into smaller and smaller caucuses cause me concern. I've said it before that the LP party organization is still an organization, subject to organizational flaws and drama.

I think it's really going to take a unifying figure, or at least a unifying message, to come out of that muck.

One of the best things about Ron Paul was that he packaged liberty as a whole - something that everyone could get behind. The LP, for as long as I can remember, has been focused on one brand of liberty or another. And then, when one brand gains the reins, the supporters of the other brands get angry and drop their support.

If the Mises Caucus "takes over", it'll just splinter off support; but if they can find a unifying message that can be accepted by the other factions, it could be good for all.

Where is Robert the Bruce to unite the clans??

I quit the LP in the '90s, too, and for much the same reason (the Perry Willis scandal was the straw that broke my camel's back).

The situation now. though, is very different from (and much more dire than) the situation in the '90s.

The Libertarian Party is just a subset of libertarians. The majority of libertarians never have been and never will be members. And there's nothing wrong with that. But for better or worse, the Libertarian Party is one of the chief "public faces" of libertarianism, and given the present situation, we simply cannot afford to allow such a venue to be run by leftarians, self-styled "libertarian socialists", and the likes of those who are intent on pandering to and seeking to win a never-to-be-granted acceptance from SJWs and progressives. These are not the kind of people who should (or even can) be "unified" with:

(They were routed by the "goons" in a clean sweep, by the way. The Mises Caucus won every elected position and now controls the Nevada state party.)

Given the opportunities afforded by COVID tyranny, rampant wokeness, regnant inflation, looming economic disaster, etc., the lackadaisical, milquetoast, Gary-Johnson-esque messaging and bland appeals to the "lowest common denominator" historically favored by the LP are simply unconscionable. The Ron Paul Revolution has been slowly fizzling out ever since 2012, and if someone doesn't actually do something about it, it's apt to die once and for all, without even a whimper. The Mises Caucus is resolved to prevent that from happening, and whatever its chances may be, with members and spokesmen like Tom Woods, Scott Horton, Michael Boldin, and Dave Smith, those chances are at least as good as any other opportunity we have available.

In other words, the Ron Paul Revolution needs to "take over" the LP, and if the other factions and caucuses can't accept and come to terms with that, then they are useless ballast that should be dumped - and good riddance! The LP needs to stop being a philosopher-heavy social club for do-nothings who want to jealously guard their "big fish in a little pond" status, and it needs to start being an active vehicle for keeping the ideas and ideals of the Ron Paul Revolution alive. Everyone should be welcome in the party - except those who wish to obstruct or interfere with that purpose. And if that means a smaller[1] and more focused Libertarian Party ... well, then, so much the better.



[1] And it doesn't necessarily mean that at all. In fact, it seems that quite the opposite is the case. One of the reasons the Nevada "takeover" was so successful was that so many new people joined the Nevada LP via the Mises Caucus, as a direct result of the obnoxiousness of the Nevada party establishment. This lesson was well-learned by the Pennsylvania party's establishment when later, at their own state convention, they had to pull shenanigans in order to prevent the Mises Caucus from "taking over" there, as well. After crowing proudly about all the new members who joined the PA state party (as a result of the Mises Caucus' recruitment efforts, no less), they had the gall to then prevent those new members from voting at the state convention (contrary to long-established custom), thereby forestalling their doom until next year's convention.

 

[TheTexan]

I quit the LP in the '90s, too, and for much the same reason (the Perry Willis scandal was the straw that broke my camel's back).

The situation now. though, is very different from (and much more dire than) the situation in the '90s.

The Libertarian Party is just a subset of libertarians. The majority of libertarians never have been and never will be members. And there's nothing wrong with that. But for better or worse, the Libertarian Party is one of the chief "public faces" of libertarianism, and given the present situation, we simply cannot afford to allow such a venue to be run by leftarians, self-styled "libertarian socialists", and the likes of those who are intent on pandering to and seeking to win a never-to-be-granted acceptance from SJWs and progressives. These are not the kind of people who should (or even can) be "unified" with:

(They were routed by the "goons" in a clean sweep, by the way. The Mises Caucus won every elected position and now controls the Nevada state party.)

Given the opportunities afforded by COVID tyranny, rampant wokeness, regnant inflation, looming economic disaster, etc., the lackadaisical, milquetoast, Gary-Johnson-esque messaging and bland appeals to the "lowest common denominator" historically favored by the LP are simply unconscionable. The Ron Paul Revolution has been slowly fizzling out ever since 2012, and if someone doesn't actually do something about it, it's apt to die once and for all, without even a whimper. The Mises Caucus is resolved to prevent that from happening, and whatever its chances may be, with members and spokesmen like Tom Woods, Scott Horton, Michael Boldin, and Dave Smith, those chances are at least as good as any other opportunity we have available.

In other words, the Ron Paul Revolution needs to "take over" the LP, and if the other factions and caucuses can't accept and come to terms with that, then they are useless ballast that should be dumped - and good riddance! The LP needs to stop being a philosopher-heavy social club for do-nothings who want to jealously guard their "big fish in a little pond" status, and it needs to start being an active vehicle for keeping the ideas and ideals of the Ron Paul Revolution alive. Everyone should be welcome in the party - except those who wish to obstruct or interfere with that purpose. And if that means a smaller[1] and more focused Libertarian Party ... well, then, so much the better.



[1] And it doesn't necessarily mean that at all. In fact, it seems that quite the opposite is the case. One of the reasons the Nevada "takeover" was so successful was that so many new people joined the Nevada LP via the Mises Caucus, as a direct result of the obnoxiousness of the Nevada party establishment. This lesson was well-learned by the Pennsylvania party's establishment when later, at their own state convention, they had to pull shenanigans in order to prevent the Mises Caucus from "taking over" there, as well. After crowing proudly about all the new members who joined the PA state party (as a result of the Mises Caucus' recruitment efforts, no less), they had the gall to then prevent those new members from voting at the state convention (contrary to long-established custom), thereby forestalling their doom until next year's convention.

If nothing else, the Mises Caucus provides a means of organizing a group of people who are generally resistant to being organized.

And getting organized is the first step to getting anything done.

 

[Invisible Man]

It seems likely to me that Massie will be running for something higher than House of Representatives some time in the not too distant future.

Maybe not as soon as 2022, or even 2024. But I can see it happening not long after that.

There's a chance McConnell won't run again in 2026 (not a certainty, since at the age of 84 he won't be remarkably old for a US Senator, but still old enough that he may opt not to put in another 6 years after that). If that seat does open up, Massie will have a real chance to take it, and he'll need help overcoming establishment opposition that will undoubtedly be better prepared for his run than they were for Rand's first one.

 

[Bryan]

Dude, I'm sorry but it's an open discussion and you just couldn't leave the elephant alone.

This movement ended on 7 June 2012 when Rand endorsed Romney. I'm not going to get in the circular firing squad of whether Ron was still in the race (despite the fact that he was) but you have to face the fact that we are a group of people who pride ourselves on not being the average voting goldfish and we actually remember things.

We are not going to forget that. We're not going to forget that his 17 hour filibuster condensed to "you can't drone strike citizens unless you filled out some paperwork".

It's true that he's doing great things with Fauci right now but that puts him roughly on par with Ted Cruz going after Garland.

Rand is not who you say he is no matter how many times you say it and we are absolutely not supporting him to the degree you wish. Rand was the golden child who was set up to inherit everything and he kicked it - and us - to the curb. He's doing fine without us so we're moving on.

I completely understand the position, and have since 2012. Rand isn't Ron, and isn't for everyone here or otherwise. So to be more correct, my "Agree to support Massie and Rand." was a personal view or I could have stated "Agree to support Massie and Rand as aligned to personal views".

While neither Massie nor Rand are Ron, in my view, they are advancing our cause in a net postive manner. Example: Massie just put forth a bill to abolish OSHA. To the point, I see it best to get behind ideas, and efforts, not people, but it's valued to know where to look (following the right people can help).

 

[Swordsmyth]

I completely understand the position, and have since 2012. Rand isn't Ron, and isn't for everyone here or otherwise. So to be more correct, my "Agree to support Massie and Rand." was a personal view or I could have stated "Agree to support Massie and Rand as aligned to personal views".

While neither Massie nor Rand are Ron, in my view, they are advancing our cause in a net postive manner. Example: Massie just put forth a bill to abolish OSHA. To the point, I see it best to get behind ideas, and efforts, not people, but it's valued to know where to look (following the right people can help).

Gosar is another one to watch.

 

[Okie RP fan]

Fed Gov is a lost cause, short of a 1776 type situation.

Focus on your local governments, secession specifically.

If you're in Texas, get Abbott the $#@! out.

If you're an idealist and the above isn't good enough for you, then start a FSP type project.

This is really the way right now. Focus on local/state and however you can empower it not just for liberty now, but to actively fight against communism/marxism. Those are our two objectives, plain and simple.
Forget the federal level stuff, it's lost. This is where the libertarian party loses me beyond just the childish infighting: they keep focusing on federal level elections and outcomes. Start small and local, then build from there.

But to be honest, let's start even smaller: start with yourself, your family, then your friends, then your community. Sound hard to do or too hokey? Well, that's the key to winning this long term. We are here today because we've lived lives of decadence and we have generations of people who've never had a "hard" day in their lives. We're here because the left infiltrated our culture (Hollywood, Academia, Music, etc.) decades ago. And now we are reaping what was sown by them for decades. We have generations of younger Americans believing they deserve everything for nothing, that people who don't think like them can and should be jailed or even have violence committed upon them, etc.

We have to start over and that begins with each of us focusing on ourselves, our families, friends, and the community.

For those saying local/state level is a wash for you as well, then I will ask you to consider moving to an area with people who think like you do. Part of our problem is we're spread out and thus we can't attack from points of strength. To any libertarian in California, why? You should have left already. New York? Why?! You should have left already.
Go to areas with like minded people. In time, these numbers will begin to mean something. If you can't leave the state, well then you better start looking for towns or cities in your state that have high concentrations of liberty oriented folks and you better start telling others to do the same.

 

[Mach]

Dude, I'm sorry but it's an open discussion and you just couldn't leave the elephant alone.

This movement ended on 7 June 2012 when Rand endorsed Romney. I'm not going to get in the circular firing squad of whether Ron was still in the race (despite the fact that he was) but you have to face the fact that we are a group of people who pride ourselves on not being the average voting goldfish and we actually remember things.

We are not going to forget that. We're not going to forget that his 17 hour filibuster condensed to "you can't drone strike citizens unless you filled out some paperwork".

It's true that he's doing great things with Fauci right now but that puts him roughly on par with Ted Cruz going after Garland.

Rand is not who you say he is no matter how many times you say it and we are absolutely not supporting him to the degree you wish. Rand was the golden child who was set up to inherit everything and he kicked it - and us - to the curb. He's doing fine without us so we're moving on.

Hate to break it to you, but all you are doing by kicking Rand to the curb is cutting all ties to 'the forums,' son..... the cold hard truth is, sometimes you have to give a little in life, too, it's not just your way, or the highway.

I like Rand.

 

[acptulsa]

I like Rand.

Me, too.

As for the rest, well. His daddy is the very person who taught him to endorse any and all GOP candidates and "presumptive nominees". "Unless you fill out paperwork" is a bit silly; that issue needed to be aired and only he tackled it. And Cruz is aping him in going after Garland, just as he aped him with his very own filibuster. Cruz rose above himself and did a good thing, but as a comparison, did Cruz expose U.S. support of a Chinese military facility, U.S. treaty violations (biological weapons were banned by treaty long ago), and perjury by the face of the big push for tyranny?

I thought not. In fact, the very fact that he keeps inspiring these "me too" moments in Cruz is just another selling point. What did Ted ever do of use to anyone before Rand Paul was elected?

Yeah, yeah. He can be mealy-mouthed. Of course he's wrong about the jab having any value at all for the recipient. But he has always met the normies halfway with his rhetoric. I can live with that, so long as he doesn't start meeting them halfway with his votes.

 

[fisharmor]

I like Rand.

At no point did I say I don't like him. At no point did I say he isn't doing good things.
What I thought I clearly said is that he is not the inheritor of the Revolution.
He is not going to be the person who is the answer "where do we go from here".
He thought he could do better with Republican faithful and so far it's working out for him. Good for him. Good for us, in that 30% overlap between his position and the position that brought us here.

Also, regarding this being a Rand forum now: you might want to take a look around at the attendance here. Most of the people who made this place what it was are gone. Did they go somewhere better? Did they give up on liberty?

Or is my theory correct, that they're gone because there was nobody to take up Ron Paul's mantle once they all realized Rand was specifically refusing to?

"Unless you fill out paperwork" is a bit silly; that issue needed to be aired and only he tackled it.

Silly? It's the truth. Go back and listen to what he's saying, or read the transcript.
The message he very clearly put forth is that the federal government should not be drone striking US citizens on US soil without procuring a warrant.

At no point did he say "It's not cool to be drone striking anyone, period".
At no point did he say "It's not cool to be drone striking citizens irrespective of location, period".
At no point did he say "It's not cool to be drone striking people in the US", period".

He went on for 17 hours and never said anything besides asking the Obama regime if they would specifically agree not to drone strike citizens on US soil without a warrant.

"Mealy mouthed" doesn't really even cut it there. He phrased his filibuster specifically to make it so incredibly specific that Obama would have to concede it.
It was done to score political points.
He walked out of it looking better to everyone across the political spectrum who doesn't like drone strikes, while at the same time not really decrying drone strikes, and changing absolutely nothing.

If anyone ever does end up lighting a fire under this movement's ass again, it's going to be someone who shares Ron Paul's prioritization of what is right over what looks good. And again, I'm not saying Rand isn't doing good things. I'm just pointing out that even if we had any sort of evidence he wanted to be that guy, he's not that guy.

 

[CaptUSA]

Silly? It's the truth. Go back and listen to what he's saying, or read the transcript.
The message he very clearly put forth is that the federal government should not be drone striking US citizens on US soil without procuring a warrant.

At no point did he say "It's not cool to be drone striking anyone, period".
At no point did he say "It's not cool to be drone striking citizens irrespective of location, period".
At no point did he say "It's not cool to be drone striking people in the US", period".

He went on for 17 hours and never said anything besides asking the Obama regime if they would specifically agree not to drone strike citizens on US soil without a warrant.

Sorry, I think you are being pretty silly here. Rand explained about the historical reasons of checks and balances as a means to rein in government impulses. I think it goes without saying that we're against drone strikes, but Rand was focusing on how to get the government to avoid them. If they had to do them in a constitutional manner, they wouldn't happen.

I know you don't agree with that approach, but it's still an approach to get the same results. Also think it's an approach a lot of people could get behind. Your approach will work for people like you, but a larger portion of the population can make up at least one scenario where they'd like government to have that power. And when you start talking a zero sum, all or nothing game, you're going to drive people off. Rand's approach appeals to a greater audience.

 

[Snowball]

If anyone ever does end up lighting a fire under this movement's ass again, it's going to be someone who shares Ron Paul's prioritization of what is right over what looks good. And again, I'm not saying Rand isn't doing good things. I'm just pointing out that even if we had any sort of evidence he wanted to be that guy, he's not that guy.

The Donald Trump movement took over. Its not like Rand didn't run for president and wasn't taken seriously... he's still young politically.
His methods might still prove out. By staying amicable with Trump, all those Trumpers and Trumpettes think quite well of Rand Paul.

 

[acptulsa]

The Donald Trump movement took over. Its not like Rand didn't run for president and wasn't taken seriously... he's still young politically.
His methods might still prove out. By staying amicable with Trump, all those Trumpers and Trumpettes think quite well of Rand Paul.

So? They sniff for consensus, then go with the herd. And they never sniff around the herd for consensus. They let the MSM tell them where the consensus lies--even though the MSM lies about that consensus.

In the early 2016 GOP primaries Trump was getting between six and seven percent of the vote. That was sufficient in a field of seventeen candidates, but it was no consensus. But, as always, the more primaries he won, the bigger his margins became, as Republicans fell in with the herd as though they were betting money instead of voting.

They might know who's best. But even though going out on a limb does them no harm whatsoever, they always vote for the one they're manipulated into voting for.

And that was before American elections entered the Mail Fraud Era. Now they won't just be letting the powers that be manipulate them, the power mongers will be stuffing their ballot boxes too. So who Republicans like and trust never meant anything, and it means even less now.

Where do we go from here? We go around that stumbling block, or we go through it, or we run smack up against it. Again.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Given the opportunities afforded by COVID tyranny, rampant wokeness, regnant inflation, looming economic disaster, etc., the lackadaisical, milquetoast, Gary-Johnson-esque messaging and bland appeals to the "lowest common denominator" historically favored by the LP are simply unconscionable. The Ron Paul Revolution has been slowly fizzling out ever since 2012, and if someone doesn't actually do something about it, it's apt to die once and for all, without even a whimper. The Mises Caucus is resolved to prevent that from happening, and whatever its chances may be, with members and spokesmen like Tom Woods, Scott Horton, Michael Boldin, and Dave Smith, those chances are at least as good as any other opportunity we have available.

The Kentucky LP is one of the state parties "taken over" by the Mises Caucus. And unlike the half-apologetic milquetoasts and half-assed "make government more efficient" crowd, they aren't kissing up to the Cathedral any more than Ron Paul ever did:

https://twitter.com/lpky/status/1458671332221239303

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1458821533607120896

https://twitter.com/AnarchoCanadian/status/1458872529834160140