Oh, Ron Paul!

Current Events US Elections 2004/2008/2012/2016
1

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington…aul-to-cal.html

Ron Paul to call for voters to rebuff both Barack Obama and John McCain

The AP story relates that in his prepared remarks, Paul says: “The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates.”

The- what candidates?!

Perennial candidate Ralph Nader, who has curried favor with Paul backers, is to join him at the morning news conference at the National Press Club. And, according to the AP, other presidential contenders Paul invited to the event include Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party and Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party.

2

I guess this is what happens when you rip off the politics of Objectivism and simultaneously reject it’s metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. “Let’s destroy the evil major socialist parties by uniting the minor socialist parties to implement their principals instead!”

3

Well, well, well, Ron Paul, former LP presidential candidate, flacking for the GREENS?!?!

I actually am astonished at how blatantly that makes the Obectivist point about Libertarians. I’ve noticed that the most powerful force in politics is not love of one’s own party but hatred for those other guys, now we have third party types caring less about their differences (alleged differences, I suppose I should say) with each other than just being against the two big guys. It’s Third Partyism shorn of the ideologies the third parties are supposed to be promoting.

4

Well, well, well, Ron Paul, former LP presidential candidate, flacking for the GREENS?!?!

I actually am astonished at how blatantly that makes the Obectivist point about Libertarians. I’ve noticed that the most powerful force in politics is not love of one’s own party but hatred for those other guys, now we have third party types caring less about their differences (alleged differences, I suppose I should say) with each other than just being against the two big guys. It’s Third Partyism shorn of the ideologies the third parties are supposed to be promoting.

They’d probably be better off if they combine their efforts and form one big party. They’d have a better chance of getting any real votes and attention. They can even elect Ron Paul for Ron Paul '08!

But seriously, we all hate the two party system in some way. However, the alternatives aren’t ever any better.

5

But seriously, we all hate the two party system in some way. However, the alternatives aren’t ever any better.

The alternatives would only lead to more of the same.

I’ve learned that lesson already. In 2000 Mexico elected a president from a party other then the PRI for the first time in over 70 years. Well and good. But things dind’t really change, and the very needed reforms remain to be implemented. In fact, it was the last two PRI presidents who did the most to liberalize economics and politics, but no one has followed up on that. If anything we’ve regressed since then, even if the party in the presidency, the PAN, bills itself as center-right. It is as commited to the welfare state and the economic rectory by the state (meaning the state must set economic policy for the country) as the PRI and the left wing parties are.

6

uniting the minor socialist parties to implement their principals

Isn’t that the definition of the Democratic party? <_<

7

Atlanta, GA – Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party nominee for president, has invited GOP Congressman Ron Paul to be his running mate in the upcoming election. In a letter sent to Paul, Barr called Paul one of the “few American patriots” who exist in today’s society, and asked him to “seriously consider this final offer as an opportunity to show true, lasting leadership beyond party politics.”

Barr cited Paul’s 1987 letter to then-GOP Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, in which Paul stated that, “after years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government…[Paul] concluded that [his] efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party.”

Though recognizing Paul’s personal investment in the Republican Party and his recent attempts to reform the party from inside, Barr said he disagreed with Paul’s strategy. “Better options remain that will carry a message of liberty onto the ballot in November and beyond,” Barr stated, adding at a news conference called today at the National Press Club, that “change in politics and public policy in America cannot and will not be done from within the current, two-party system.”

Barr continued, “‘The status quo will not change the status quo’ and impact comes entirely from gaining votes in the General Election.” That is why Barr said he would remain focused on the Libertarian Party’s electoral effort and clear message, and why he invited Paul to join him.

“While you declined my offer to seek the Libertarian presidential nomination many months ago, I ask that you seriously consider this final offer as an opportunity to show true, lasting leadership beyond party politics,” Barr stated in his letter to Paul.

Barr’s running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, expressed support: “As the Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee, I believe in one thing above all else—principle. There can be no compromise on the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and more freedom for the American people. Those are the principles to which I’ve dedicated my life. The GOP and Democratic candidates only give lip service—at best—to these ideals and principles. It is only an act at election time every four years.”

“I want to end the charade once and for all,” Root continued. “I am willing to sacrifice anything to advance the cause of liberty, freedom, smaller government and to enable the American taxpayer to keep more of their own money and property. Understanding Dr. Ron Paul’s reputation and name recognition in the freedom movement, I am willing to step aside as Libertarian vice presidential candidate if he would be willing to take my place. I will pledge to work day and night, just as I have as the vice presidential nominee, to support Dr. Paul. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for the Libertarian and freedom movements. I encourage Dr. Paul to accept Congressman Barr’s offer. The campaign is making this offer because we believe there is no sacrifice too large when it comes to improving the lives of the American people and American taxpayers.”

Source: http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/…berty-movement/

It’ll be interesting to see if Paul accepts.

8

Why he’d want a VP candidate who is flacking for another party is beyond me.

Oh wait, Barr is really a Republican, flacking for the LP (and the LP lets him do this…)

[i just had a fairly lengthy e-mail exchange with someone claiming to be both an Objectivist and a Libertarian; I was able to convince her of the LP’s faults both with some of my past experiences as a Libertarian and by her recalling at that instant, Bob Barr. (I had some help from other Objectivists, BTW.)]

9

[i just had a fairly lengthy e-mail exchange with someone claiming to be both an Objectivist and a Libertarian; I was able to convince her of the LP’s faults both with some of my past experiences as a Libertarian and by her recalling at that instant, Bob Barr. (I had some help from other Objectivists, BTW.)]

These type of questions of the difference between an Objectivist and a Libertarian come up all of the time. Based on the Libertarian sets of questions (the smallest political questionnaire), I was asked to come up with my own set of questions that would differentiate an Objectivist from a Libertarian.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/message/793

10

But seriously, we all hate the two party system in some way. However, the alternatives aren’t ever any better.

I think there are many superior alternatives to democracy. For example, we could eliminate all nation-wide and state-wide elections and have a small number of market-traded voting offices for each city or county. The officers would purchase their positions with either their own wealth or through a constituency. They would constitute a natural elite that would nominate (mostly symbolic) state and national leaders and thus retain most of the political power. That’s just one possibility of the top of my head.

11

The only alternative to a two-party system is a two-coalition system where each coalition consists of several parties has to agree to a common party platform. But this just shifts the decision making to a different level. In a two-party system the candidates have to do the same thing by positioning themselves to attract most of the voters.

In the end it comes down to have the ability to vote for a (smaller) party whose principles you agree with but which has to compromise its principles when forming a coalition (two-coalition system) or to have to compromise your principles by voting for a larger party in a two-party system but which does not have to form a coalition.

Basically its the same thing, one could argue that a multi-party system is better (in terms of the amount of time one has to invest to represent his political ideas, but that’s just a guess, there are a lot of factors involved) but there is no significant difference between the two systems.

Maybe there is a smaller degree of corruption because parties want to stand united and a part of the party can’t easily divorce itself from the rest of the party or easily form a coalition with a different party. I think it’s more flexible in that regard.

12

I think there are many superior alternatives to democracy.

Yes, there is, and the one we have in the US is far more superior – it is called a Representative Constitutional Republic. And I don’t understand what some people have against this form of government, or why some form (any form) of elitism would be better. Without some sort of standard by which to judge if a government official is doing his job or not, it’s just an oligarchy, whereby a few rule over the many. Our Founding Fathers were against both Democracy and Oligarchy, and for the same reasons – there would be no standards by which to thwart those trying to rule over the people. That standard is the US Constitution, and the then implicit idea of individual rights (that they called liberty). They were not as explicit as Objectivist can be today, but certainly, that standard ought to be the protection of individual rights as coded into law. Our Constitution and the checks and balances set up in the government, have protected us from dictatorship (of the many or of the few) for over two hundred years, and there is no reason to give up on it now.

How are these supposed elites going to be serving individual rights? and why do you think a rich man knows more about individual rights than does a poor man? I most certainly know a lot more about individual rights than do Bill Gates, Ted Kennedy, or almost all of those men who I would categorize as being rich.

The best way to insure liberty (as in individual rights) is to speak out for them every chance one gets so that we can have the cultural change necessary to reverse the laws to protecting individual rights. In the mean time, an oligarchy is not going to protect us one hoot.

13

In Aristotle’s diagram, there are six types of government that are described, the rule by one, Monarchy, and its corrupt form, tyranny; the rule by few, aristocracy, and its corrupt form, oligarchy; and the rule by many, polity, and its corrupt form, democracy (aka mob rule, or ochlocracy).

I don’t know that Aristotle’s governmental forms cover exactly what we have today in the USA, and I’m not even sure he could have imagined a system of government to uphold individual rights – it was too early in philosophy for that. But even the rule by an aristocracy (which might be closer to what Greedy Capitalist had in mind) is not endearing to the protection of individual rights, because under an individual rights protection type of government, the individual is not ruled, though he is governed. That is, the laws of the land apply to him, as they do to everyone, but they are not there to tell him what to do, but rather to tell him what is and is not a violation of individual rights; and he is politically free live his life as he sees fit otherwise.

Unfortunately, at least fifty to seventy years of government run schools primarily run by leftist elites, have brought us to the point where the average high school student doesn’t have a clue about how to think rationally, let alone know anything at all about individual rights. And the ideals of socialism have become ingrained so that now people think they have to have a government to divide up the Gross National Product pie (see the debate forum). I didn’t find out in full clarity what individual rights were until I read Ayn Rand, and her major works have been out there for more than fifty years.

I think the US form of government is one of genius in that it is both representative of the people who are being protected and it is curtailed by a limiting constitution. When it comes to the form of government, there is nothing wrong with ours. But philosophy still guides what the people consider to be their rights, which is why the educational campaign must continue, because once the ideal of individual rights is understood, the implementation of those rights can be carried out via our form of government.

So, no, when it comes to my government ruling over me, I’ll pass – I want it to protect my individual rights: no more, and no less.

14

In light of the Barry Goldwater acceptance speech posted on Myrhaf’s blog a few days ago, it’s striking how very weak the LP is.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=13674

At least Goldwater and his kind had some effect in their time. Comparing the two however just makes Bob Barr and Ron Paul look more milquetoast than ever. I really can’t imagine them having much of an effect on politics. I saw Ron Paul today on Glenn Beck, and he was bemoaning the opportunistic nature of the heads of Fannie/Freddy being “private” companies. Then shortly thereafter he was on Colbert in the same day making some confused and nonsensical statement about how the government took people’s guns during Katrina.

15

Ron Paul has endorsed Pastor Baldwin from the Constitution Party. He stands for massive government intervention on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, prostitution and drugs, and is strongly against immigration, something which should turn a lot of people away from Paul’s “Campaign For Liberty”.

Source

16

If his endorement doesn’t turn off people on this board from Paul… I don’t know what will.

I think getting rid of The Fed is high priority too, but they aren’t going about it the right way. Like defeating the communists was good for the Wiemer, but not by voting in the National Socialists.

17

I’m bumping this for anyone who didn’t get the news yesterday.