Read it and weep. Then buy the book:
Read it and weep. Then buy the book:
I was walking into Trader Joe's (grocery store) last weekend and a young volunteer was soliciting people to sign up for something to do with Ron Paul---probably voter registration or something.
Anyway, as I walked past, I heard him refer to "Ron Jeremy" as he was delivering his spiel to a passerby. They didn't recognize the name, and he quickly corrected himself.
I thought it was pretty funny. Ron Jeremy for president. That would be interesting!
How much money would a campaign have to spend to get a book like that onto the bestseller list? Presumably they get part of the profits, so some of the money is getting recycled...
Then realize how naive a pipe dream libertarianism is...
Lazy L wrote:
Then realize how naive a pipe dream libertarianism is...
Yeah, tell me about it. Thomas Jefferson was one naive bastard.
He must have traveled into the future too. "Libertarian" was first used in 1857.
and the term dinosaur was coined in 1842 so obviously dinosaurs did not exist before then either
jefferson held the same views as libertarianism - just because the name didn\'t come until 1857 doesn\'t mean they aren\'t one and the same. the word catholic wasn\'t used until 110 AD, does that mean the church up until then wasn\'t the catholic church?
Ron Paul and Thomas Jefferson are best described as classical liberals, not libertarians. Libertarianism is a modern bastardization of classical liberalism and stands for nothing whatsoever.
The thing about early American political thought is that there was a whole lot of crossover of various veins of thought. To describe Jefferson as a libertarian, or to suggest he and Ron Paul would support the same ideas, doesn't paint a full picture of Jefferson. Sure he believed in things like limited government (as opposed to say Hamilton). But Jefferson also called a republican (or what you might call a classical republican for clarification's sake). A libertarian would support the Lockean idea that government exists to protect life/liberty/property (as we see in the US Constitution). Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, life/liberty/pursuit of happiness, instead. In fact he wasn't at the Constitution Convention and was infuriated by the change. Just a small (and admittedly not very helpful to explaining republicanism) example of how Jefferson was a believer in liberty, but not necessarily libertarianism.
What I care about are not the labels, but the individual actions that define Ron Paul. ( Disciplined spending. Government that is contained and controlled by the populous. No foreign entanglements and especially preemptive war. Money fixed on the Gold standard. Greater personal freedoms. So I don't care what someone calls Ron Paul or Jefferson. The question is, where are we now and what is best for our society?
Ru Paul wrote a popular book. Wow, he (?) found a way to keep a career going.
Here's the delegate count, the one thing that matters in getting the nomination. Read it and weep.
He got fourth out of 16 Republican candidates. I think his showing was remarkable considering his divergences with the rest of his party.
Lazy L wrote:
Then realize how naive a pipe dream libertarianism is...
True enough. Ron Paul would admit this. A libertarian world is about as likely as a crime-free world, or a world without famine, or a world without tragic airplane disasters.
It's not gonna happen, it's an ideal to strive for.
Even Ron Paul-of-his-day TJ admitted this:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
Sounds Good wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_delegate_count.htmlHere's the delegate count, the one thing that matters in getting the nomination. Read it and weep.
No one here said that Ron Paul was going to win the nomination, so I'm not sure what that was in response to. I think that even though Paul won't be our next president, the support that he has gained should hopefully send a message to the rest of the candidates and to the rest of the people in government that people are tired of uncontrolled government spending and expansion (as I think most people are). Even though I don't know that I'd want Paul as president and I don't support all of his ideas, I'd like to see a congress and president who would cut out all the unnecessary programs (ie get rid of 90% of the government).
Remarkable? There were people on here in December that thought he would win. Look, the guy has some good ideas and is true to his word, but he is simply irrational.
Ru Paul joke wasn't funny the 1st time around. It sure is not funny the 100,000,000th time around.
Sounds Good wrote:
Remarkable? There were people on here in December that thought he would win. Look, the guy has some good ideas and is true to his word, but he is simply irrational.
On what issues is he irrational?
Remarkable? There were people on here in December that thought he would win. Look, the guy has some good ideas and is true to his word, but he is simply irrational
He comes across as irrational to people who are stuck on the status quo and incapable of looking at things differently. It's a matter of indoctrination- the same as creationists are incapable of seeing proof of evolution. That's why so many of RP's supporters are young people who are new to the political arena. They haven't been mindf***ed by statism yet.