Ron Paul VS RNC

[Tyrannical]

It's frustrating to be a Libertarian these days, but I've always thought that Paul was something of a sellout because he joined the Republican party under false pretenses.

Libertarians need to approach politics openly as Libertarians. Trying to pretend to be a Republican in order to get elected is a bad plan, and it's morally and ethically dishonest.

I'm unsurprised at the machinations within the Republican Party, they rightly see this election as a pivotal moment in history and they see a grave danger if Obama is reelected, so they are determined to solidify support behind Romney, for better or worse, because he's the only one who has any chance whatsoever of beating Obama, and anyone even remotely conservative is better than a 2nd-term Obama.

Sadly, though I'm not particularly fond of Romney, I agree with them. We've got to beat Obama, and that's all that matters. Political disagreements on the conservative side must be set aside in favor of solidarity in making sure Obama does not get reelected, which would be even more of a disaster for this nation than his abominable first term.

I just hope that Libertarians won't Ralph Nader or Ross Perot Obama back into the White House because they are pissed off.

Paul is trying to change the direction of the Republican party, and there is nothing dishonest about it. Political parties have changed direction many times in the past. The Democrat party used to be the party of Jim Crow and the KKK, now it is an overwhelmingly non-White.

[Warren Dew]

I'd be interested to hear some Libertarian opinions on what's going on here. It seems that the Republican party is making it abundantly clear that they don't want Libertarian meddling in their continued far-right shift, to the point of actively suppressing dissent within their own party. Now Ron Paul is refusing to back Romney. Personally, I'm thrilled to watch the Repugs dig their own grave, and while I don't agree with Libertarians on a ton, I do think they could bring something of value to the nation's political discourse if they seperated themselves from the growing insanity of the GOP.

Sorry to disappoint, but it's overblown. The convention rules were always clear: to get a guaranteed speaking slot, you had to win a certain number of states. Ron Paul didn't manage to win any states. He was offered a speaking slot anyway, on the condition that the speech be vetted, and turned it down. Personally, I think that was a mistake; by all accounts, Cristie's speech was more about himself than about Romney or the Republican party, and if Paul had made his speech mostly about liberty, that would have done his cause much more good than stonewalling as he did.

For whatever reason, though, a few avid Ron Paul supporters insist on trying to fight anyone they think represents authority. Yet, they also claim victories in getting a number of their key planks into the Republican platform, which kind of shows that in fact, the Republican party is listening to them, and adopting some, if not all, of their ideas.

Paul is trying to change the direction of the Republican party, and there is nothing dishonest about it.

Agreed. He is also starting to succeed, getting planks into the platform on internet privacy, dropping the "too big to fail" policy, and TSA reform - along with Federal Reserve transparency, if you care about that.

I feel the opposite of Seth on this matter: I think it's a great time to be a libertarian. It's becoming quite clear that the most enthusiastic elements of grass roots support for the Republican party solidly agree with libertarian philosophy, and the party leadership is running scared. Furthermore, the demographics dictate that tomorrow's party leadership will be drawn from today's grass roots. I think there's an excellent chance that the Republican party will return to being the fundamentally libertarian party it was before Nixon got it sidetracked into opposing civil rights. All that's needed is to stay away from the potential for division on particular religious hang ups.

Moreover, it's looking more and more like the new consensus that will emerge from the coming crisis era will be fundamentally libertarian as well. That would be truly wonderful, as it would mean that my kids and grandkids could live in a fundamentally free society rather than in the oppressive statist society that we are presently headed towards.

It's far from a certainty, but I'm beginning to have hope.

[Warren Dew]

The fastest growing segments of the Libertarian Party are the 18-24 year olds and the over-50s. The former are traditionally Democratic while the latter tends to lean towards the GOP. I think the younger ones are attracted more to our left-of-Obama social views while the latter are more in tune with our right-of-Romney fiscal position.

I think the 18-24 year olds have recognized that Obama and the Democrats are the reason why they can't get good jobs, or in many cases any jobs at all. Austrian school economics provides a neat explanation for that, and the rest of libertarian philosophy is naturally attractive to the young and immortal who want to forge their own path through the world.

[mistermack]

Moreover, it's looking more and more like the new consensus that will emerge from the coming crisis era will be fundamentally libertarian as well. That would be truly wonderful, as it would mean that my kids and grandkids could live in a fundamentally free society rather than in the oppressive statist society that we are presently headed towards.

It's far from a certainty, but I'm beginning to have hope.

It's a million miles from a certainty. Until you can come up with a practical answer to the basic problem, that one set of freedoms will reduce others. There is, and can never be a fundamentally free society. It's alway a balancing compromise of one set of freedoms against another.
Libertarianism is just a naive daydream.

[Warren Dew]

Moreover, it's looking more and more like the new consensus that will emerge from the coming crisis era will be fundamentally libertarian as well. That would be truly wonderful, as it would mean that my kids and grandkids could live in a fundamentally free society rather than in the oppressive statist society that we are presently headed towards.

It's far from a certainty, but I'm beginning to have hope.

It's a million miles from a certainty. Until you can come up with a practical answer to the basic problem, that one set of freedoms will reduce others. There is, and can never be a fundamentally free society. It's alway a balancing compromise of one set of freedoms against another.

I think you confuse freedom with utility. Our society could be changed to increase some freedoms without reducing any others. There would be a tradeoff, but it would be safety, not freedom, that was traded off - and we'd only lose a little safety for a big increase in liberty.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Let me guess... you watched this bullshit:

Never watched it.

But...

[mistermack]

I think you confuse freedom with utility. Our society could be changed to increase some freedoms without reducing any others. There would be a tradeoff, but it would be safety, not freedom, that was traded off - and we'd only lose a little safety for a big increase in liberty.

Ok, but a slight change of emphasis hardly equates to a "fundamentally free society".
Nobody said you can't have a change of priorities. That happens every time there's a change of govt.

But they always find out that it's not as easy as the slogans claimed. Your claim about increasing some freedoms without reducing others would soon stagger to a halt when it hits reality. As soon as you get elected, you realise that you need to get re-elected, and that's what drives your policy in the end.

Decrease safety and you generate hugely bad publicity. So you don't get re-elected.

[Warren Dew]

But they always find out that it's not as easy as the slogans claimed. Your claim about increasing some freedoms without reducing others would soon stagger to a halt when it hits reality. As soon as you get elected, you realise that you need to get re-elected, and that's what drives your policy in the end.

Decrease safety and you generate hugely bad publicity. So you don't get re-elected.

That depends on how big the decreases to safety are. If you get another airliner flown into another skyscraper, yes, that could affect your reelection chances. If you get another shoe bomber failing to bring down an airliner, not so much. People will accept an occasional failed hijacking attempt in order not to have to wait in line for an hour to be irradiated at airport security.

However, I'm not really talking about individual candidates here; I'm talking about changes in the attitudes of the electorate as a whole. If a substantial majority of the voters become less willing to trade liberty for safety, that will affect government through multiple election cycles and multiple candidates.

[mistermack]

I can't argue with that, but it's a big if. And a very unlikely if.

When it comes to safety, you might be right, that a small drop in safety could increase personal liberty.

But the thing is, that safety has an effect out of all proportion to the actual threat. Three thousand-odd people died on 911, a miniscule proportion of three hundred million. The danger to americans from terrorism is absolutely tiny. BUT, it's sparked two major wars, and an enormous anti-terrorist effort in America. Because it's not just the people who died, it's had an effect on the minds of Americans. They no longer feel that security that they used to. They feel more vulnerable.

So safety has a MENTAL effect on the nation out of all proportion to the actual threat.
And that's why I don't think you will persuade them to sacrifice a bit, to buy a bit more personal liberty any time soon.

[Warren Dew]

But the thing is, that safety has an effect out of all proportion to the actual threat. Three thousand-odd people died on 911, a miniscule proportion of three hundred million. The danger to americans from terrorism is absolutely tiny. BUT, it's sparked two major wars, and an enormous anti-terrorist effort in America. Because it's not just the people who died, it's had an effect on the minds of Americans. They no longer feel that security that they used to. They feel more vulnerable.

So safety has a MENTAL effect on the nation out of all proportion to the actual threat.

Those 18-24 year olds were grade schoolers when 9/11 happened. Their parents probably "protected" them from most of the impact of the news. I don't think they'll have the emotional response that older Americans might.

And a lot of the older Americans are really getting fed up with the TSA and other government infringements on liberty.

[Seth]

I can't argue with that, but it's a big if. And a very unlikely if.

When it comes to safety, you might be right, that a small drop in safety could increase personal liberty.

But the thing is, that safety has an effect out of all proportion to the actual threat. Three thousand-odd people died on 911, a miniscule proportion of three hundred million. The danger to americans from terrorism is absolutely tiny. BUT, it's sparked two major wars, and an enormous anti-terrorist effort in America. Because it's not just the people who died, it's had an effect on the minds of Americans. They no longer feel that security that they used to. They feel more vulnerable.

So safety has a MENTAL effect on the nation out of all proportion to the actual threat.
And that's why I don't think you will persuade them to sacrifice a bit, to buy a bit more personal liberty any time soon.

No, they were MADE TO FEEL MORE VULNERABLE even though the threat is actually quite small. It was a carefully crafted plan by George Bush the Younger, and after him Obama, to keep stoking the fear of terrorism in order to do two things: create a more pliable, compliant public and dramatically enhance the power and control of the federal government, which is exactly what the Progressives want. I keep telling everyone that George Bush the Younger IS A PROGRESSIVE, not a conservative. He's a quintessential big-government, I'm-in-control-here kind of guy. So is Obama. That's the problem.

Get rid of the Progressives and dramatically downsize the federal government by amending the Commerce Clause and limiting what the President can do by way of domestic security and turn over any legitimate antiterror efforts to the states, with the exception of the CIA, which is needed to detect threats offshore and relay information to response agencies in the US, and we'll be a lot more free and only a little bit less safe.

[Twoflower]

But the thing is, that safety has an effect out of all proportion to the actual threat. Three thousand-odd people died on 911, a miniscule proportion of three hundred million. The danger to americans from terrorism is absolutely tiny. BUT, it's sparked two major wars, and an enormous anti-terrorist effort in America. Because it's not just the people who died, it's had an effect on the minds of Americans. They no longer feel that security that they used to. They feel more vulnerable.

So safety has a MENTAL effect on the nation out of all proportion to the actual threat.

Those 18-24 year olds were grade schoolers when 9/11 happened. Their parents probably "protected" them from most of the impact of the news. I don't think they'll have the emotional response that older Americans might.

And a lot of the older Americans are really getting fed up with the TSA and other government infringements on liberty.

I was in 7th grade when 9/11 happened and watched all of it unfold on the news at school, when I got home it was still on and I watched it there, same with almost all my friends and anyone else I have talked to about it. Our parents couldn't protect us from it because it was everywhere we looked. Thanks to the wars and most people from my generation knowing or being related to at least one person who fought and knowing people who have died in the wars a lot of my friends and I can't imagine growing old like our parents and grandparents. Our response isn't as emotional because we are use to this stuff it's what we grew up with and we are fed up with it and want a change. My moms response when someone we know is killed is to be very upset, mine and my friends is more well that's sad but not surprising. Anyway that's just conversations my friends and I have had.

[Drewish]

I'm going to try and keep this on topic a bit. http://www.examiner.com/article/johnson ... henanigans

Fucking cheating bastards.

[Warren Dew]

But the thing is, that safety has an effect out of all proportion to the actual threat. Three thousand-odd people died on 911, a miniscule proportion of three hundred million. The danger to americans from terrorism is absolutely tiny. BUT, it's sparked two major wars, and an enormous anti-terrorist effort in America. Because it's not just the people who died, it's had an effect on the minds of Americans. They no longer feel that security that they used to. They feel more vulnerable.

So safety has a MENTAL effect on the nation out of all proportion to the actual threat.

Those 18-24 year olds were grade schoolers when 9/11 happened. Their parents probably "protected" them from most of the impact of the news. I don't think they'll have the emotional response that older Americans might.

And a lot of the older Americans are really getting fed up with the TSA and other government infringements on liberty.

I was in 7th grade when 9/11 happened and watched all of it unfold on the news at school, when I got home it was still on and I watched it there, same with almost all my friends and anyone else I have talked to about it. Our parents couldn't protect us from it because it was everywhere we looked. Thanks to the wars and most people from my generation knowing or being related to at least one person who fought and knowing people who have died in the wars a lot of my friends and I can't imagine growing old like our parents and grandparents. Our response isn't as emotional because we are use to this stuff it's what we grew up with and we are fed up with it and want a change. My moms response when someone we know is killed is to be very upset, mine and my friends is more well that's sad but not surprising. Anyway that's just conversations my friends and I have had.

That's an interesting perspective; thanks. Of course it still suggests that the 18-24 year olds will be able to deal with security issues in a more practical way, without the disproportionate emotional reactions that mistermack suggests, if for different reasons.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was in the seventh grade when Kennedy was shot. Similar feeling for that and 9/11 in my view.