Why is it so hard to elect pro-liberty people to government?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

I think you are underestimating it. Trump executive orders would be horrible.

He wants to appoint people like Scalia to the supreme court. They wouldn't let him do unconstitutional stuff.

Clinton would be just as bad, but she will be restrained by her own party to a degree. Because, unlike Trump, Clinton wants to be a legend in the Democratic party. She's not going to do something they can't sell to their constituents. Trump has no such restrictions.

Trump is a narcissist and wants to be loved by people. That is why he somewhat changes unpopular positions. Clinton has no scruples.

I also disagree with your statement that people agree with his policy. What policy?!!! Holy $#@!, man! His policy of calling people names?!

Mostly immigration. reduce legal immigration. Muslim ban. Bringing jobs back. Building the wall. He says a ton of stuff I like. As for attacking his enemies, this is a good thing. Would you rather have someone like John McCain who is always compromising with his so called enemies and apologizes the second a bit of conflict comes up? Usually people attack Trump first and he is only defending himself.

His policy of not concerning himself with reality?!

I think he is the most in tune with reality on so many issues like immigration, Islamic threat, trade/jobs etc. which is why he won the primary. Do you have any examples of him being disconnected from reality?

No, his campaign has nothing to do with policy. It's all smoke and mirrors and a con.

 

[fredkc]

Why are most of our politicians whores of corporations and against the regular Americans they are supposed to represent?

1. Because by the time they reach the national arena 95% of all politicians are in someone's bag. Corporate interests supply the money, we just supply the votes. "Who ya gonna pay?"

2. In the current climate, no real live "Statesman" would go near either party. Besides, most people wouldn't recognize one, nor are they able to pay much attention - give it that much thought.

3. Lord Acton is too wordy, and worn, so I'll use Frank Herbert's version from "Dune". Very succinct:
"Power attracts the corruptible."

Fred

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It's not hard to elect people to government,,
Just lower your standards

I won't lower my standards. Up yours.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Because Ron Paul was wrong. Freedom is not popular.

And even at its best, mass democracy cannot produce anything but averages drawn upon the mob.

That is why the "choices" perennially offered by democracies are so overwhelmingly composed of wishy-washy schmucks, corrupt chiselers, and demagogic blowhards.

Sadly, this is true.

There will always be a state; the only choice we have is what kind of state it will be: more aggressive or less aggressive.

If there will always be a state, it is not so that "the only choice we have is what kind of state it will be". We will not have that choice. And the hard evidence we have of that fact is the state of the American state itself - founded on something of a principle of liberty, it has metastasized into exactly the kind of state the state wishes to be. So it is, and so it shall always be.

I disagree that there will always be a state. There was a time in human history when people thought there would always be slavery. And while slavery still exists in the world, civilized humans reject it reflexively. Furthermore, tho' it exists in the world, it has not grown and overwhelmed societies where it is rejected, as we're told the state will do to stateless societies.

I prefer no slavery to a little slavery, because I recognize that a little slavery is an unacceptable encumbrance, immoral, and a rejection of the objective truth of individual sovereignty. Advocates of the abolition of slavery overturned the general acceptance of the institution of slavery, and advocates of statelessness can do the same.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If there will always be a state, it is not so that "the only choice we have is what kind of state it will be". We will not have that choice. And the hard evidence we have of that fact is the state of the American state itself - founded on something of a principle of liberty, it has metastasized into exactly the kind of state the state wishes to be. So it is, and so it shall always be.

The state is not a machine, it's people. As you say, the state is what the state wishes to be.

i.e. rulers choose how to manage their state, e.g. to have it be more pro-market or more socialistic

What they cannot choose to do is abolish the state.

...they could abolish their own state, sure, but it would just be replaced with another, ruled by other people.

I disagree that there will always be a state. There was a time in human history when people thought there would always be slavery. And while slavery still exists in the world, civilized humans reject it reflexively. Furthermore, tho' it exists in the world, it has not grown and overwhelmed societies where it is rejected, as we're told the state will do to stateless societies.

I prefer no slavery to a little slavery, because I recognize that a little slavery is an unacceptable encumbrance, immoral, and a rejection of the objective truth of individual sovereignty. Advocates of the abolition of slavery overturned the general acceptance of the institution of slavery, and advocates of statelessness can do the same.

"That one thing was abolished, therefore it's possible to abolish this other thing" does not follow.