Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Ron Paul Surge?
FreeMarketNews.com is reporting a dramatic surge in post-debate campaign contributions to Ron Paul, putting him in a near-tie with McCain behind Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Paul had about $500,000 on hand at the end of March, but sources in his campaign told FMN he now has $3-4 million, and is closing fast on $5 million.
I've sent an email to a Paul staffer asking for confirmation.
|6.9.07 @ 1:46PM|#
I hope you guys don't think I'm too into the whole libertarian thing because of this, but this "Ron Paul isn't a chump" stuff gives me hope for the world. Seriously.
Bee|6.9.07 @ 2:04PM|#
Heh. I contributed. A little. My first ever political
contribution. And ya know what? I might just do it again.
I saw some stat once that showed Paul has a tremendously high
percentage of small, out-of-district campaign contributions.
Eric Dondero|6.9.07 @ 2:11PM|#
And the latest Zogby poll now has Paul at 0%, down from a high
of 3% in March.
Boy, let's hope that definition of "Surge" is applied to other
libertarian hopefuls. We'd be out of existence as a movement in
months.
|6.9.07 @ 2:13PM|#
The only way Paul can get in the white house is if he wins the
Republican primary. How to make this happen? Switch your
registration to Republican and vote for him! Also try to get
elected as a delegate to the RNC, so your vote has more
weight...
I'm usually a Public Choice, rational ignorance, non-voter kind of
guy, but if people actually vote for him, he might win. Rather than
just talking about how he can't win...
|6.9.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Hey Eric,
Just think, if Paul is actually elected president you might have a
chance, however slim, of winning that House seat.
tomwright|6.9.07 @ 2:23PM|#
I sent $500 to him a couple weeks ago.
In most states I think you can vote in primaries whether you are
registered to that party or not, but your registration is switched
to that of the party primary you vote in. At least that is how I
htink it works here in NJ.
I plan to try to vote for him in the NJ primary, if I can.
|6.9.07 @ 2:24PM|#
As much as I see the reason Ron Paul is loved by the
libertarians, I was interested in the response to this from his
positions on his website...
"End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know
their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter
the U.S. illegally will remain strong."
Seems at odds with his stated position to base policy on the
constitution.
Eric Dondero|6.9.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Hey, whatever happened to all those Ron Paul fanatics screaming
a couple weeks ago that he "won the debate" and would soon "surge
ahead of the other contenders."
Now he's down in the polls to 0%.
Where are they all now?
Where are all those who said, "Ron Paul kicked Giuliani's
ass..."?
Now Giuliani is clearly ahead in all the polls, and now many are
claiming he's got a lock on the nomination.
Thanks Ron Paul for boosting up Rudy Giuliani. Sorry it smacked you
back down to 0% in the polls. But we True Libertarians appreciate
your help for Rudy!
|6.9.07 @ 2:31PM|#
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
This is a list of national poll results. The ones listed here have
Paul between 0% and 2% during the last week. 1% looks like the mode
result.
Eric Dondero|6.9.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Two MAJOR PUBLICATIONS just called Rudy Giuliani a "libertarian"
in the last couple days: US News & World Report, and the
Chicago Sun-Times.
US News even headlined their story on Rudy with the word
"Libertarian".
Here's a question for ya.
Do you see the media applying the label "libertarian" to any of the
other 21 major contendors for President, Dem or Republican?
Gotta be some reason as to why the media applies the label
"libertarian" ONLY to Rudy, (save Ron Paul, of course), and not to
Fred Thompson, McCain, Romney, Hillary, Tancredo, et.al.
|6.9.07 @ 2:35PM|#
I prefer allowing more people to live and work in the U.S. without their children becoming automatic citizens to prohibiting people from living and working here.
Eric Dondero|6.9.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Thanks for the poll numbers Bill.
So where's the "Ron Paul surge"??
Remember 3 weeks ago, when all the Ron Paul fanatics were spamming
every Blog and Website on the entire Internet with threats that
"Ron Paul kicked Rudy's ass, and will win the
GOP nomination and go on to win the Presidency"?
'Member that?
Where are they all now?
I'd like someone to please explain to me how steady poll numbers
since a candidate announced in the range of 0% to 2%, can be called
a "Surge"?
Bramblyspam|6.9.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Paul still has no chance of winning. He won't be able to stand
up against the smear machines if they start seriously targeting
him, and in any event the majority of the GOP voters are still
solidly pro-war. As the lone anti-war candidate, Paul will
naturally gather a lot of support from a vocal minority - but it
remains a clear minority in his party. Eventually the pro-war GOP
voters will unite behind one guy. That guy will win the GOP
nomination, and it sure as hell won't be Paul.
The best part about Paul's campaign is that it's getting the
anti-war/libertarian republicans organized and active. That has
potential to transform the republican party, but don't start
talking about Paul as the next Goldwater yet. Remember, Goldwater
was supported by most of his party, and he won his party's
nomination.
For 2008, I think the best we can hope for is that Paul will get
enough support to warrant a prime time speaking slot at the
republican convention. Now that would be worth watching, if only to
see the warbots squirm. It would all slip out of public
consciousness within a week, but I'll happily enjoy my momentary
pleasures while they last.
In the longer run, I think the best we can hope for is a crushing
republican defeat on all levels in 2008, followed by a bloodbath in
the GOP. That's the only way I see the republican party turning in
a more Paul-like direction. The religious nuts are still solidly
entrenched in that party though, I have a hard time seeing how they
could get booted out in less than a decade.
For 2008, I think the only way an anti-war candidate can win is if
we get a solidly anti-war "unity ticket" candidacy in a 3-way race.
I'd love to see it, but I'm not holding my breath.
|6.9.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Eric,
We're right here. And he did kick Giuliani's ass all over the
stage. I'm not going to get in to polling methodology with you, but
there are a number of reasons why Paul is underrepresented in the
polls, not the least of which is that he's not one of the ordained
"big three" candidates yet.
But 5 million dollars in donations, that's something of a show of
support, no?
Also, how did you get here from Bizarro World?
Dondero after Giuliani tells us that freedom is submission to
arbitrary authority: Me... So... Happy!
Fluffy|6.9.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Dondero, you're an idiot. I don't care if the US News and World Report calls Giuliani a fucking gorilla, it doesn't make him one. No sane person considers Giuliani a libertarian, unless the party opened up a "slobbering torturer" wing at some point in the last year. Is that your caucus or something?
|6.9.07 @ 2:45PM|#
US News even headlined their story on Rudy with the word
"Libertarian".
Was the headline "Rudy Giuliani is not a Libertarian"?
Otherwise, they're smoking crack.
miche|6.9.07 @ 2:49PM|#
I'm a 54 year old housewife from the Midwest. I've voted in every Presidential election since I was 20 and I've always voted for the candidate I hated the least. This is the first time I'm voting for a candidate I love. In my mind, Ron Paul is a modern day Thomas Jefferson. He is an "honest" politician...the ultimate oxymoron. God knows we've had a lot of plain morons to deal with; and we're tired of it.
If a man is a liar, nothing… absolutely nothing he says is worth a hill of beans...and our political system has been inundated with liars for decades. They have taken our great nation and driven it into the ground, spiritually, economically and societaly. They have made it an embarrassment (because they themselves are an embarrassment). Just look around when the national anthem is played. People don't hold their hands on their hearts, they show little respect and pride. Our country is reflecting the moral lacking of decades of poor leaders.
Ron Paul will give this country its pride back because we will be a morally responsible leader of the free world, leading by example instead of leading through fear.
Not only will I switch parties to vote for Ron Paul, I'm signing up at my local www.meetup.com group and I'm working on his campaign. I have never offered to work in any political capacity before. Ron Paul is America's last chance to wrest our shredded Constitution from the death spiral the men in Washington (both Democrat and Republican) have put it in.
JEFFREY TROCHELMAN
Saturday, June 09, 2007
[reply] [delete]59 yo and never sent a dime to any politician, however I have donated three times to Dr Paul and will continue to send him my hundred bucks a week. I would rather piss it away on fun stuff but better to give now, then have those SOBs in DC rape me later.
Just two of the many comments on Ron Paul.
http://usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-natural-boost.html
miche|6.9.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Should have indicated that the comments were from somewhere before I quoted them. I'm not a 54YO housewife.
|6.9.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Two MAJOR PUBLICATIONS just called Rudy Giuliani a "libertarian" in the last couple days: US News & World Report, and the Chicago Sun-Times.
US News even headlined their story on Rudy with the word "Libertarian".
Hrrm, I just did a search of the Chicago Sun-Times site and found
no mention of "Giuliani" and "libertarian" in the same article. As
for US N&WR, the only "Libertarian" mention from the past week
was a (apparently now removed) blog entry about "Giuliani's
Libertarian Health Care Reform", whatever that fucking means.
Anonymo the Anonymous|6.9.07 @ 3:04PM|#
I hope to God Mr. Dondero's campaign is as annoying as his behavior here.
Thornton|6.9.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Here is a good piece on why Giuliani is not a libertarian: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/05/30/2007-05-30_libertarians_beware_the_rigid_reign_of_r.html
severin|6.9.07 @ 3:16PM|#
I still don't think he stands a chance of getting the nomination, but I like the fact that as a primary candidate he has already gotten more attention than he did as the LP presidential nominee. I also read that gaming sites have changed the odds on his winning the presidency from 100 to 1 to 15 to 1, I think those guys have a better feel for these things than any polling company out there.
Eric Dondero|6.9.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Remember, Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York or 9/11. 9/11 9/11 9/11
Thornton|6.9.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Eric,
I searched the Zogby site and the latest Republican nomination poll
they have is for May 16 2007. Ron Paul is in at 3%, which puts him
in 5th place out of 11 candidates listed. I'm not sure what you
have been looking at but the polls I see have Dr. Paul gaining
support (from none in Jan/Feb to 1-3% now).
I don't understand why you can't see that Rudy is possibly the most
UN-libertarian of all the candidates. I would chose anyone on that
stage over Rudy. Maybe you should actually check out his
record.
LatexSolarBeef|6.9.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Dr. Paul's gonna win.
Wait until you see the first-time-voter numbers come in from the
party primaries. Behold, as the unwashed masses commandeer the
Republican Party.
tomwright|6.9.07 @ 3:35PM|#
So far as Ron Pauls position on birthright citizenship, I
understand that he supports a Constitutional Amendment to change
the rules, not just ignoring them as so many have.
I do not know about any of you, but I was once called on a
political poll. (years ago when I still had a hardwired line). I
was given the choice of the R or D and I said I supported the
Libertarian. I do not know what kind of group it was but they kept
trying to get me to choose either the R or D candidate until they
gave up after a minute or two of questions. I have no idea how they
scored that call, or if they just circular-filed it.
So I am not certain how good the polls are, especially this far out
and this early.
I believe there are 7 more debates scheduled, so there is time for
things to shake out a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Presidential_Debates,_2008
|6.9.07 @ 3:36PM|#
I think it all depends on which party primary more independents
in New Hampshire vote in.
If they choose to vote in the Republican primary, they could at
least give Paul a much bigger vote than anyone would expect.
The Unregistered Voter|6.9.07 @ 3:43PM|#
I'll vote for anyone who promises to give Eric Dondero a kick in the balls.
tomwright|6.9.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Cesr, There are people making a living doing that. Maybe you can point them in E.D.'s direction. They may find an eager customer. :-)
WillyPete|6.9.07 @ 3:55PM|#
This is promising news, but a very recent article from Bowling Green which quoted Dr. Paul's son stated that he was closer to two million than 5. Hey, every million for Dr. Paul is comparable to many millions for the other candidates. He is very thrifty, his campaign is very thrifty and his supporters are extremely dedicated. The Internet has really changed things and so far Ron Paul is doing the most to take advantage of that.
|6.9.07 @ 3:55PM|#
http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1181277534326&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112101662670
What's that? Oh nothing, nothing except an article that points out
that the methodology of "scientific" polls have a 3 to 5 point bias
against Ron Paul.
Eric, you're an imbicile if you believe Rudy is a libertarian just
because USN&WR was dumb enough to say so. I think when figuring
out who a libertarian is I'll look at who writes for libertarian
websites like antiwar.com, or maybe I'll look at who libertarians
like Lew Rockwell are supporting, or maybe I'll look at people who
are life members of the Libertarian Party and former presidential
candidates.
Rudy isn't libertarian. He's not even conservative. He's fascist.
He's "Freedom is Authority." Anyone ever see those games where you
match the quote to the world leaders and FDR ends up having the
most authoritarian quote? That's Rudy "Il Duce" Giuliani if he
wins.
|6.9.07 @ 3:59PM|#
It is interesting how far campaign dollars will stretch when a candidate isn't paying people to support him a la Mitt Romney.
Grotius|6.9.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Not to be the turd in the punch bowl, but when Paul does well in a primary or a caucus or rises above 10% in the polls will be a time to get excited.
|6.9.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Don't worry, Ron Paul's supporters are so omnipotent and
omnipresent they can game anything (including the primaries!)
You cannot defeat our magical powers.
tomwright|6.9.07 @ 4:14PM|#
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
Grotius|6.9.07 @ 4:30PM|#
How does Paul's campaign compare to Dean's at this point in 2003 (or Carter's in 1975)? As far as I can recall Paul is far behind where Dean was.
|6.9.07 @ 4:50PM|#
The psychic twins are predicting that Hillary will be the next Prez........sorry guys, I'd love to see Paul get into the White House, too! They say she beats Guliani, not surprising.......it's the non-political stuff......she "kept the faith" through public humiliation and infidelity wheras he's a sleaze on his third marriage...........
|6.9.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Were people even talking about the presidential race in 2003? I feel like the whole election season has moved back significantly this cycle. Maybe because everyone's so pumped that it won't be George Bush.
|6.9.07 @ 5:26PM|#
I sent him $25 just the other day.
How 'bout the rest of you Ron Paul supporters? Cough up some didge
if you wanna make it happen.
Let's blow Judy McRomneyson outta the water!!!
Edward|6.9.07 @ 5:30PM|#
Homer Simpson would probably have a better chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul.
miche|6.9.07 @ 6:00PM|#
"I do not know about any of you, but I was once called on a
political poll. (years ago when I still had a hardwired line). I
was given the choice of the R or D and I said I supported the
Libertarian. I do not know what kind of group it was but they kept
trying to get me to choose either the R or D candidate until they
gave up after a minute or two of questions. I have no idea how they
scored that call, or if they just circular-filed it."
Same thing happened to me in the TX governor race.
|6.9.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Edward,
I am sure that's true because Homer Simpson is a better choice than
all the other candidates "known" by the public. Once they become
aware of RP I look for HS to drop in the polls.
|6.9.07 @ 6:05PM|#
If the reports are correct that he is over $4 million, then that
is wonderful news.
I believe that the poll results are our best information about how
he is doing right now among likely Republican voters. And it isn't
very good.
I think he has a lot of room for improvement. If he sticks with a
simple, "get out of Iraq," "let's not invade Iran" message, then
there are maybe 25% of likely Republican voters who agree and who
clearly have no alternative.
If he can get a majority of those votes, he will be out of the
second tier (and at the bottom of the top tier.)
Something like 25% of Republicans have abandoned the Republican
Party in the last few years. Perhaps some of them might be willing
to return. (Some may have left for reasons other than opposition to
Bush's crazy war, of course.)
And, further, independents can be drawn into the process.
I think Paul's positions on all issues (including foriegn policy)
are going to make winning the nomination (and the general election)
very difficult.
Harley|6.9.07 @ 6:07PM|#
Eric,
So what if he was the Mayor on 9/11? I did not see anything that
really stood out. I mean, the firefighters, paramedics, and police
did their job and Rudy didn't fuck it up. Is that his major
qualification? "I let them do their job!" Okay, more than what the
Mayor of New Orleans can claim, but if NOT being a major fuck up is
somehow something that means you should be President, it is just a
sign that the politics of the US has slide to a very low
point.
Oh, you are also a douchecoptor.
GILMORE|6.9.07 @ 6:16PM|#
Other people have pointed out that Paul has no chance at all of
winning the primary - so isnt this like getting excited over your
horse breaking from last to...third from last? It will have no
impact on the eventual outcome.
It may have some longer term effect on helping consolidate a
republican 'minority' constituency, but as far as national politics
for the next 5 years... fart in wind...
Randolph Carter | June 9, 2007, 5:24pm | #
Were people even talking about the presidential race in
2003?
Uh. Yes, I assume so. The 2004 presidential race, probably
I think you mean 2006?
people have been hyped about the 2008 election since very early on
because it's clearly a transition moment = ending ~8 years of
management that few people can honestly defend without caveat.
Naming Bush's "major achievements" is a tough job. On nearly every
subject other than his tax cuts (and even to some degree on those),
he's proved unable to deliver anything fruitful.
Republicans are in a weird identity crisis because many of the
issues they've tied their cart to have drifted so far out of
control...
they talked so brazenly tough on Immigration and Terror and Humble
Leadership and Reforming Entitlements and God and Family and
protecting Fetuses and children from sex predators and Leaving no
Children Alone For Too Long etc etc that they find their base
unwilling to hear anything other than I AM SO MUCH MORE AMERICAN
THAN ANYONE THAT THIS NATION WILL IMPLODE WITHOUT MY
LEADERSHIP.
Of course, on almost all these issues they've got little to show
for their talk, after ~8 years of complete control of govt.
The uberconservative base is becoming the anchor pulling the party
away from a winnable center. I think it's fascinating how there's
this clear need to pander to the "I am a man of God" people, and
claim to be a "right-to-lifer", but the clear frontrunners in the
GOP are
A)Romney, B)Giuliani and C)McCain...
a)former pro-life democrat
b)pro gay-rights divorcee, occasional crossdresser, catholic mayor
of the Heart of Godless Liberalism
c)openly reviled Bible Belt types for years even though he now
kisses their ass.
I think there's a big question of uber conservatives staying home
on election day if they dont get any chance at a candidate MORE
hardcore than bush on at least 2 of their big issues. That hands
the White House back to the dems. I suspect that they'd almost be
happier with an Enemy democrat president in power, rather than a
wishy washy republican. Just my thoughts as of today.
I think the republicans best hope is if Hilary wins the Dem
nomination. *Then* they will bleed off some independents and dems
who simply can't abide by her. I'm personally gunning for Obama.
Call me a fan of 'inexperience', which i consider a plus in his
case.
Hayekian Dreamer|6.9.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Since when did Mr. Dondero care what the mainstream media thinks? This is a truly remarkable day, suddenly a "libertarian" like Mr. Dondero is giving props to the media?
|6.9.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Could someone let me know exactly where, in the bible, The Zogby
Poll is named, as the Definitive Word on all of mankind's opinions?
Or is it not the bible, but the government-licensed MSM that is
always telling us what we think - er - what we zogby?
I note three premises of the Ignore-Ron-Paul School of Political
Commentary:
1) He has few supporters
2) His Mainstrean Supporters are beyond count
3) His few supporters are able to consistently out-spam the beyond
count Mainstream Supporters in nearly all online polls.
Conclusion: We can ignore Ron Paul because his supporters are
dishonest and clever - unlike the Mainstream Supporters, who are
not so clever, but ever-so honest.
Mainstream Zogby tells us so. Who could doubt?
|6.9.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Correction: Premise 2 should have read:
2) THE Mainstrean Supporters are beyond count
|6.9.07 @ 6:36PM|#
I'm a 40 year old WASP sort of guy, registered republican and I vote, though never straight ticket. I abstained from casting a vote for president the past 2 cycles. Ron Paul is voicing what I've been waiting to hear. I'm excited about it. I sent him $100.00 after the 2nd debate. The first time sending a politician money for me too, and I'm going to send more. I think the rest of the pack, republican and democrat, are in for a big surprise over the next few months.. Go Ron Go!
GoRonPaul|6.9.07 @ 6:50PM|#
I am concerned that the $5M figure is quite exaggerated... There
have been some whispers from the Paul campaign indicating as
much...
But if the number is indeed around $2M, that is still some real
financial traction and enough to earn a bit of credibility with MSM
hacks, and keep him in the race for a while longer...
I gave $500 the other day and persuaded a wealthy libertarian
friend to give the max $2,300... that felt great. Reason readers
who can, should do the same...
This is a fantastic, perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime, chance to
advance some libertarian ideas in front of a mainstream
audience.
I mean, he's been rocking the boat in those debates... and getting
some attention from people who probably don't even know what a
libertarian is...
Even if Paul does not win, his candidacy can have a significant
influence on politics, particularly in the Republican party for a
long time to come...
Go Ron Paul!!!
|6.9.07 @ 6:54PM|#
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL. Im behind you DOC...... LETS TRY SOMEONE THAT TELLS US THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!
|6.9.07 @ 6:59PM|#
I gave Ron $50 the other week. I feel that lack of money
shouldn't be what knocks Ron out. He should make it atleast to the
primaries with his message, regardless of how he does.
The important thing about our democracy is that every perspective
has a voice and Ron is my perspective, so hand him the
megaphone.
|6.9.07 @ 7:04PM|#
The problem with Ron Paul's success is that it demonstrates what
so many of us have feared - that the Mainsteam Media is actually
quite stupid and dishonest. We are up against small, ignorant,
petty minds that were comfortable and are now being
disturbed.
Small, ignorant, and petty minds can be very ruthless when their
comforts are disturbed. They will make war and destroy the earth
before admitting to being wrong.
Ron Paul has done his part - he is right. Now it's our turn to be
right (effective) in how we support him.
|6.9.07 @ 7:19PM|#
Well I don't want that $5M to be quite exaggerated so I just sent Ron Paul $500.00 more. I'm getting pretty fervent about this fellow, the more I research the more I like. He's the man.
|6.9.07 @ 7:20PM|#
Wow. I can't believe there's actually a human alive that thinks
Rudy G is a libertarian.
That aside - I am skeptical of the FMNN story. I think that 5 Mil
is a rumor and we're going to look silly if we run around the web
bragging about it then it does not pan out.
But I am sending him more money too.
|6.9.07 @ 7:27PM|#
Some online polls make multiple voting easy. Some Paul
supporters (and supporters of other candidates) have done this. I
suppose this is a bit like Spam. Just as in Spam, a person sends
many emails, in this situation, a person makes many votes.
Paul supporters communicate the existence of online polls to other
Paul suppoters, go visit the polls and vote for Paul.
This causes some consternation to those putting on the polls.
Rather than getting those of their regular readers who are
interesting in voting, they are getting people who just visit to
vote in the poll.
It is interesting that Fox Network promoted its own poll during the
debate, and even that was dominated by Paul supporters (well, he
came in second.) There are enough Paul supporters to dominate even
high volume websites.
But still, it is only a few thousand votes, right?
Most Americans don't care to vote in online polls.
Perhaps Paul supporters are a bunch of oddballs, and so they aren't
reached in random sample pollng. But these pollsters do a pretty
good job of predicting elections. You don't see very often that
someone is at zero percent in the polls, but then they win the
election because all of their supporters just consistently refuse
to answer pollsters.
A lot of people who are not very engaged in the process, and will
vote out of a sense of duty for someone they have heard of and who
doesn't seem too bad, will often be too busy to answer a pollster.
They would rather continue watching the ball game.
Those of us familiar with Libertarian Party polling results and
final election results should be well aware that polls tend to
overestimate support, not underestimate it.
|6.9.07 @ 7:28PM|#
I'm with Grotius on this one. When Ron Paul gets within striking
distance of Fred McRomliani, then I'll get excited:
6/5-6/07 5/15-16/07
Rudy Giuliani 24 25
John McCain 15 18
Fred Thompson 14 9
Mitt Romney 12 10
Mike Huckabee 3 1
Tommy Thompson 3 2
Ron Paul 2 1
|6.9.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Eric Dondero shows his true colors.
Wow. Someone described Rudy as a libertarian, that means it must be
true.
Eric, when you decide to actually BE a libertarian rather than just
CALL yourself one, let us know.
|6.9.07 @ 7:41PM|#
Sick of knowing that I would never be randomly selected for a national poll because I only have a cell phone, I signed up online for Zogby's polling list so sometime in the future they might at some point ask my opinion. Ha!!
|6.9.07 @ 7:41PM|#
Small, ignorant, and petty minds can be very ruthless when
their comforts are disturbed. They will make war and destroy the
earth before admitting to being wrong.
'The truth will always seem insane to those comfortable with lies.'
--George William Rutler
As I've said before, the only conclusion I can come to from the
MSM's dismissive treatment of Paul in the debates, is that they
don't have nerve endings for his message. When he talks about
keeping govt within the bounds of the Constitution, and letting
states make decisions on contentious issues like abortion and gay
marriage, he may as well be speaking Esperanto. He doesn't fit into
the left-center-right continuum, so they toss him into the
eccentric 3rd-tier candidate bin.
I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy afoot...it's in the
media's best interest to play up division inside the parties (note
how they've exaggerated the minor differences between Rudy, John,
and Mitt, and act as if they expected a major brawl in the NH
debate between these three very similar candidates). I simply think
they interpret Ron Paul's positions as little more than
crazy-talk.
|6.9.07 @ 7:43PM|#
Bill, not all Paul supporters organize. I spontaneously vote
once for him whenever I find an online poll. Of course, unlike most
of his supporters I also give others their due (in CNN's recent
online Poll I gave Tommy Thompson props for his improvement).
It's also very early. Yeah, if he's at 3% in December he'll
probably lose, but being at 6-8% when land lines and other
variables come into play is pretty good at this point. It's also
good to have dedicated, hardcore support so early in the race. No
one else has this kind of grass roots support (maybe Fred, but
we'll see), they just have name recognition and money.
|6.9.07 @ 7:46PM|#
I just saw the above post. He's got a point: the media doesn't want Ron Paul because he goes against the storyline for '08: that Dems are antiwar and the GOP is prowar. It's not a conspiracy, its just that he messes the story line. I mean, even right after MSNBC and CNN's debates I heard analysts say that the whole field was pro-Iraq (no one made that mistake after the fire works in the FOX debate). Clinton on Sunday night claimed they were all pro-war.
Edward|6.9.07 @ 7:50PM|#
Those who thinks Ron Paul is going to have a major impact on
politics are marginally dumber than the dumbos who actually think
he can win.
Gillmore should be getting paid to do political commentary. A
Hillary win is the Reublicans' only chance. A woman for president
violates the psychology of male status, and we're psychologically
closer to the evolutionary environment than most other nations.
GoRonPaul|6.9.07 @ 8:00PM|#
Yes, Edward. We're idiots for thinking that Ron Paul's
mainstream campaigning might have some effect on politics... Since
when has a libertarian politician been given air-time on every
major news outlet, however reluctantly?
But your evolutionary psychology idea is riveting... The only flaw
is that it pre-supposes that we care whether or not the
Republicrats win again...
|6.9.07 @ 8:08PM|#
Paul, at 2% in the current Fox poll,
is becoming a haven for default voting,
where one can't stand the leaders.
I'm figuring libertians are about 1/2%.
Mike Laursen|6.9.07 @ 8:24PM|#
Question for someone who knows way more about international law/typical citizenship laws throughout the world: if we don't confer automatic citizenship on children who are born here, how likely are some of those children to end up having no citizenship whatsoever?
|6.9.07 @ 8:31PM|#
If you are registered Libertarian, I wouldn't rush to switch to
GOP just so you could vote for Ron Paul. There aren't enough
registered Libertarians to make a difference for him except in the
most Florida-2000-ish of circumstances. On the other hand,
desertion in the LP ranks could harm the party's ballot access
status, forcing it to spend more money to regain ballot status or
simply give up on certain states altogether. In the event that Dr.
Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, it would be nice for there
still to be at least one true libertarian on most or all state
ballots in November of 2008. As long as the LP has access, it can
nominate its own candidate, or even draft Dr. Paul. But if it has
little or no ballot access, neither of those options will be
open.
To me, it makes more sense for the great mass of independents to
register GOP temporarily for purposes of promoting Dr. Paul's
candidacy in the Republican Party. There are a lot more
independents than all third-parties combined. If the
Libertarian-leaning faction rushed the GOP on behalf of Dr. Paul,
he might actually get somewhere. And assuming that Libertarians
remained faithful to their own party, we could conceivably have TWO
truly libertarian candidates for President next year. Wouldn't that
be outstanding?
|6.9.07 @ 8:34PM|#
I certainly hope all the people throwing money at this political
campaaign will later support libertarian causes that will actually
make a difference especially those educating young people.
I'm a big skeptic on Paul. He's got too many conservative positions
for me to get really thrilled and enough kooky positions (and
friends) to worry me.
And I suspect the money raised is being exaggerated. It is floated
by an anonymous person at the Paul campaign. But the rumor varies.
I've seen $5 million, up to $4 million and then $2 million, etc.
This was posted hours ago and at the time Radley asked the Paul
campaign to confirm and so far nothing. Surely they would know. So
why the delay? Why the vast differences in the sums?
GILMORE|6.9.07 @ 8:38PM|#
Edward | June 9, 2007, 7:50pm | #
Those who thinks Ron Paul is going to have a major impact on
politics are marginally dumber than the dumbos who actually think
he can win.
Gillmore should be getting paid to do political
commentary....
thanks for the kudos
Only one "l" BTW
I dont think RP supporters are deluded, or that Paul's candidacy
isnt meaningful or a good thing for the political landscape - at
least to give the mainstream a real taste of how much support even
*minor* libertarian cred can garnish... but I agree, he's got an
snowballs chance in hell at actually ever receiving the nomination,
and even less beating hilary in that kind of matchup. too many GOP
would only remember Paul being the Blame America candidate, even
though thats a false characterization. He got "swifted" in like 30
seconds in the first debate, which was unfortunate... even though
he did well and is getting more support now
WillyPete|6.9.07 @ 9:03PM|#
RP will stand firm on his beliefs and America will come to him. That's how I found him. That's how most folks I know found him. Now that he is actually getting some face time on TV even more folks are being drawn in by his message.
|6.9.07 @ 9:10PM|#
Funny, Ron made more money than Rudy in NH right from the first
fundraiser, and had more than 3 times as many rally-goers as Rudy
did at this last debate. He won the WMUR bloggers poll, topping the
list at 6 with Romney, garnering NOT ONE VOTE.
Rudy is a liberal and no different from Hillary.
|6.9.07 @ 9:11PM|#
PS - I just handed him and envelope with $10K in it at the debate...that was just from NH. Rudy and McCain have not done that! Nor have they gotten 182 people at a house party either.
GILMORE|6.9.07 @ 9:50PM|#
WillyPete | June 9, 2007, 9:03pm | #
RP will stand firm on his beliefs and America will come to
him.
"here boy! here boy! Ronny has a cookie!"
whirrrrrrr, whirrrr, arp
"You stupid fucking dog! Come to me!"
----------------------------------
RonPaul Cheerleaders? Listen: you will win more supporters by
engaging in conversation that by sniping boards with Sloganeer
Crews
Seriously.
RPFAN|6.9.07 @ 9:53PM|#
Ron Paul came to my party last week and did fucking kegstands, then grabbed the mic and did a perfect rap of "Follow the Leader" by Erik B and Rakim WHILE beatboxing!!! the mfr' has like a double larynx and like 2 stomachs or something. I gave him the deed to my house and my youngest sister to sell on the black market. See ROmney pull that shit off!!
|6.9.07 @ 10:00PM|#
I hope Ron Paul does well. I sent him a few bucks myself. First
time I've sent money to a campaign in a long long time.
But, we have tunnel vision. Listen to the crap on conservative talk
radio and the junk on Fox News for a change.
Even Neal Boortz has gone off the deep end with his pro-war and
anti immigrant shallowness. I finally had to just turn him
off.
Then you'll understand why Ron Paul has no chance to win the
nomination.
IDL
|6.9.07 @ 10:08PM|#
Note to Progressives...
One thing that is critical to remeber about Ron Paul is that while
his beliefs on progressive issues are not considered by many people
to be "good", he is still firmly in favor of giving that power back
to the states. I live in Seattle, Washington... I would like to see
universal healthcare, evironmental reform, and a safety net to help
people in hard times. I have come to the realization, however, that
these are NEVER going to come so long as we live in a police state
with federal laws preventing change at the state level and a
bureaucracy intent of the status quo. The system is rigged...
Period.
Every year we send hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal
government and then bitch when it doesn't come back to us. It's
time to quit sending the money out in the first place, and use it
instead to fix the problems in the states in which we now
stand.
The simple fact is, the positions of his which could be considered
"ridiculous" are positions which he does not attempt to dictate to
the people.
With Ron Paul you will be able to affect real change where you
live. Without him, you won't be able to affect it at any
level.
America Needs Ron Paul!
WillyPete|6.9.07 @ 10:11PM|#
@Gilmore
Yeah, and personal attacks really make you look like a charmer. Who
is your candidate, Obama? Yeah, duly noted. Lots of Obama fans have
been on the attack. I already added conversation to the piece above
by stating that Ron Paul's son recently mentioned donations being
nearer $2 million than 5. My second comment about RP remaining
consistent and supporters coming to him is truthful. He hasn't been
advertised to his fans like the other candidates.
|6.9.07 @ 10:16PM|#
WillyPete,
Gilmore is an intelligent regular commenter here, and i don't think
he supports Obama. No big deal if EVERY SINGLE PERSON doesn't want
to get a hard-on over Ron Paul - and it is somewhat annoying when
his supporters (myself included) have an I-love-Ron-Paul posting
orgy.
mw|6.9.07 @ 10:27PM|#
Can't we libertarians all get along?
The 3% RP poll and the RP contribution surge can both be correct.
My understanding is that any money contributed to RP's presidential
campaign can be used by RP in his congressional re-election
campaign if he drops out/loses the Republican presidential
nomination.
Consider this fact: The Ron Paul contribution surge started on
the very day that Eric Dondero declared himself a candidate for
Paul's congressional seat.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Clearly the RP contribution surge is directly attributable to
Operation B.U.T.T.H.E.A.D.
Bloggers
United
To
Thoroughly
Head off the
Election of
Asshats like
Dondero.
For additional fun, how about a game of "spot the sock puppet" in
this comment thread.
TallDave|6.9.07 @ 10:35PM|#
Seriously though, while I agree with what a lot of Ron says he
has zero chance of winning either the nomination or the general
election.
Probably the best he can hope for is to build a large enough
constituency that his endorsement of a major candidate is
meaningful enough to extract some significant concession(s) from
the frontrunner.
|6.9.07 @ 10:35PM|#
I find it worth noting that every LP activist in Fla that I know
has been bitching about Rittberg/Dondero and his asshole attempts
to hijack libertarianism since about 1987.
C'm'on, Benito Giuliani is a 'Libertarian"? Give me a fucking
break!
TallDave|6.9.07 @ 10:38PM|#
Giuliani is a 'Libertarian"?
Probably the best you'll get among major candidates. Dems all want
national health care and other big-gov stuff, and he's the only
social liberal on the GOP side.
|6.9.07 @ 10:47PM|#
TallDave,
Guliani is not a libertarian. That doesn't mean that he will tax us
to death or wonder who's sleeping in our beds, but he'd suffer no
qualms about taking an innocent man out and cutting him into little
tiny pieces until he told guliani what Guliani wants to hear. Nor
would he be afraid to bomb other countries indiscriminately. He's a
bully first and foremost regardless of his qualities and only
people that want to see a Putin "strongman" in the whitehouse
should vote for him.
WillyPete|6.9.07 @ 10:51PM|#
@Randolph Carter
Here is a quote from Gilmore that gave me the impression that
Gilmore is gunning for Obama... "I'm personally gunning for
Obama."
Also, I did not simply make a 'Go Ron Paul 2008!' post, merely
noted that RP remains firm on his message, doesn't get advertised
and that a lot of his supporters find him. If that is too much for
Gilmore or anyone else to take, it is not my problem. I'm not the
one who made it personal.
Detractors toss around their catch phrase slogans like 'RP doesn't
have a snowballs chance in hell to win' and that's fine. What they
don't realize is that for many people hell might not be a hot place
but rather a very cold one and a snowball would have a damn good
chance there.
|6.9.07 @ 11:41PM|#
haha, ok, I didn't read his full post. I was just defending him because most of what he's written in the past has been well thought out, etc.
GoRonPaul|6.9.07 @ 11:44PM|#
As a long-time Reason reader I find it difficult to conceive of
not getting a raging hard-on for a candidate like Paul... Perhaps
he doesn't have all the socially-liberal creds we'd like, but, come
on... Are you going to wait till Jesus returns and tells everyone
to chill-out and persue their individual happiness while respecting
the property rights of others, then support his campaign!??
Hhaaaa!
But do forgive the cheerleading...
|6.9.07 @ 11:45PM|#
Chris Welton says: "Note to Progressives... One thing that is
critical to remeber about Ron Paul is that while his beliefs on
progressive issues are not considered by many people to be "good",
he is still firmly in favor of giving that power back to the
states. I live in Seattle, Washington... I would like to see
universal healthcare, evironmental reform, and a safety net to help
people in hard times ... Every year we send hundreds of billions of
dollars to the federal government and then bitch when it doesn't
come back to us. It's time to quit sending the money out in the
first place, and use it instead to fix the problems in the states
in which we now stand.
The simple fact is, the positions of his which could be considered
"ridiculous" are positions which he does not attempt to dictate to
the people."
Chris, I appreciate your support, but are you aware this is a
libertarian website, not a "progressive" one? "Universal
healthcare" means the government forcing businesses and individuals
to purchase health care, and/or extracting taxes to transfer money
from some citizens to pay for health care for others.
"Environmental reform" generally seems to mean passing a bunch of
regulations about how businesses can be run, and how people can use
their private property. And "a safety net to help people in hard
times" is almost invariably NOT voluntary donations, but compulsory
confiscation of taxes to transfer wealth from one group of people
to another.
These are the kind of "ridiculous" notions Ron Paul holds. along
with most of the people who post here. Perhaps you should consider
whether these compulsory programs you'd like to "attempt to dictate
to the people" (your words) are fair, humane, or in any way likely
to enhance freedom? (Hint: No. Gawd no. Did I mention "no"? If not,
my bad. P.S. No.)
You seem like a nice person who doesn't realize that the socialist
beliefs you hold lead to utter misery if pursued to their logical
end. Please reconsider.
|6.10.07 @ 12:06AM|#
God damn it, people. Try to think like gamblers, not like
suckers.
Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning, because the (private
voting booth) bias against her gender doesn't have to be very large
at all to kill her in all of the critical swing states. She
probably wouldn't completely embarrass herself in the popular vote,
but she wouldn't win the election.
Goes triple for Obama, except for the not embarrassing part.
Same for Romney, if he's matched against affable southerner Edwards
(the formula for Democrat victory).
So, unless the thread has been hijacked by cosmologists, let's
please not talk about infinitesimal odds. There is a much greater
chance of a nuclear attack causing GWB to be appointed dictator for
life, than of Ron Paul winning the presidential election.
|6.10.07 @ 12:11AM|#
"You seem like a nice person who doesn't realize that the
socialist beliefs you hold lead to utter misery if pursued to their
logical end. Please reconsider."
Thank god no idea/belief ever held is pursued to their logical end
in reality...including those that you hold jh.
In the real world principles are used to guide policy ... caveats
and adjustments for the insufficiencies of the abstracted/schematic
model included.
|6.10.07 @ 12:14AM|#
Looking at National Polls isn't very productive. Rudy is winning
the national polls at this point*, and nobody thinks he has a
chance in hell at the nomination. Indeed, when you look at Iowa,
New Hampshire, and South Carolina, he isn't in first place in any
of the polls in those states. National polls are just registering
name recognition at this point, and what some of you have to
remember is that even though we all know who Ron Paul was, 99% of
America didn't. Contrast that to the 99% that did know who Rudy and
John McCain were. Ron started from nowhere. To be where he is at
right now, and to have raised even 2 million dollars, would be an
astounding accomplishment. Doom and gloom all you want- none of us
expected this. He's still a long shot, but his campaign is
absolutely on fire.
*And some websites are posting national results complied from the
polls in individual states. But when you looked behind the numbers,
Ron wasn't even included in the choices of half the states they
used to make the meta-poll. So not only are national polls useless,
some forms of them highly discriminate against Paul too.
|6.10.07 @ 12:15AM|#
Chris didn't seem to take a position either way. In any case, he has a point. Whether you believe in modern economic liberalism or not, you can support state's rights. Whichever it is, if you are right, the track record of the various states will start to show it - states with more, or less, regulation will begin to do better in statistically noticeable ways, and your views will either be vindicated or (justifiably) demolished or modified. In any case, the world is a better place as more people begin to implement the winning policies (particularly since only a few states will have gone to pot, or have begun going to pot, rather than the whole country).
|6.10.07 @ 12:18AM|#
jh - Yes, I realize this is a libertarian websiite: and I
respect your views on all of the points you just made, and I thank
you for the rebuttal, as I think it is very important to talk about
such things.
What I am saying is that I believe (morally) healthcare should be
available to all, but any attempt to do it at the federal level
will end up with the exact problems you refer to. It has to be done
at a local level (by people who really give a damn and aren't
taking bribes), where those who make mistakes can be held
accountable, and where real criticisms can be raised. Please note
that this is also the level at which oponents of this idea will
have the greatest voice.
As for the environment, it seems to me that there are quite a few
practices of major corporations that really do impede on the rights
of others by polluting the air they breath and the water they drink
(without compensation). Once again, however, any attempt to force
these issues at a federal level as opposed to local action is bound
to end up as inefficiency, incompetence, and the destruction of
rights.
'"Environmental reform" generally seems to mean passing a bunch of
regulations about how businesses can be run'
But it doesn't have to mean that. There is a difference between
telling a company they must use scrubbers (how to run it), and
individual states issuing guidelines for sane emissions (where the
market would be allowed to find the best way to produce things
without destroying the environment, whether it is by using horribly
inefficient overpriced scrubbers, or by finding a newer better
way)
And even with the last point what I am talking about is finding
ways to make sure people aren't sleeping in the streets in my own
neighborhood, not an overarching welfare state. It will take a
mixture of private charity and local government action, but even as
I said before, those who oppose it will be able to directly join in
the debate.
All that aside, I am talking about what i want to do here in
Washington State, and the Seattle area specifically. I'm not
advocating forcing these issues onto anyone else. Do you see this
as rampant socialism or community action?
Derrick|6.10.07 @ 12:47AM|#
Enough already from the "Ron Paul doesn't have a chance" crowd.
If that's even true, it's due largely to self-fulfilling statements
from defeatists - people who are destined to lose because they
don't even bother trying.
Winners say "this is possible" and then find ways to make something
happen. Not to sound like Tony Robbins, but that's pretty much how
things work.
Andrew|6.10.07 @ 1:01AM|#
In the Utah GOP Straw Poll only Romney finished ahead of
Paul which is a given considering he's a Mormon in Utah.
It's funny how whenever a liberty oriented message gets popular,
the label attached to it gets hijacked by big government types. The
term liberal got hijacked way back when and now we say classical
liberal. It looks like the same is being done with libertarian. If
Dondero and Rudy are libertarians then so is Hillary Clinton.
Marc Scott Emery|6.10.07 @ 1:02AM|#
This talk that Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of winning is
ridiculous. Who cares? Only one person wins the presidency, so
should everyone who supports a candidate not polling 25% right now
abandon their ideal choice and confirm the leading contender?
Remember, every vote for any candidate that doesn't win is, in
reality, a wasted vote. So if you don't want to waste your vote,
that would mean voting for the inevitable winner. And what exactly,
would the point of that be?
Hillary-Obama-Rudy-McCain-Romney-Edwards, the differences between
these 6 candidates is trivial. 90% of all voters, Democratic &
Republican, currently support one of these 6 candidates. Should we
join in, forget our principles and our intense devotion and
admiration for Dr. Paul's advocacy, and support a "winner". Will
the nation be greater for that?
No! The nation will be greater if we all re-double our efforts,
give more money, make more posters, wear Ron Paul T-shirts, put Ron
Paul flags & bumber stickers on our cars, sign up voters, join
a Ron Paul regional or state campaign office, tell everyone you
know, or even put a sign on your balcony that says GOOGLE RON
PAUL.
Derrick|6.10.07 @ 1:06AM|#
And even with the last point what I am talking about is
finding ways to make sure people aren't sleeping in the streets in
my own neighborhood, not an overarching welfare state. It will take
a mixture of private charity and local government action, but even
as I said before, those who oppose it will be able to directly join
in the debate.
Reduce the rate at which we are all taxed, and this problem will
largely solve itself. More income means each of us can buy more
goods and services, which means companies can employ more people,
which leaves fewer people jobless, which leaves fewer people
homeless.
There will still be a very small handful of people who are left
homeless due to severe mental illness, but we'll be in a better
position to help them because we'll all have more money in our
pockets.
|6.10.07 @ 1:11AM|#
Chris,
I agree with your thoughts on regulation. Thoughtful,
scientifically based "environmental reform" is an overall good. One
caveat, however, is that I've rarely seen government produce
something thoughtful and scientifically based. After all, how many
scientists do you see in government. Yeah...
So instead of immediately thinking "what can the government
do....", think "how can the free market fix this....". Its a
fundamental change that defines the difference between nannyism and
libertarianism. Essentially, its my belief the government may "make
you do the right thing" briefly, as it goes against your interests
usually, but the market can "get you to want to do the right thing"
as long as you continue to benefit
There are times when its hard to think of a market-oriented
solution, but if your default is asking those questions first,
you're on the right track.
|6.10.07 @ 1:14AM|#
@TallDave
Seriously though, while I agree with what a lot of Ron says he
has zero chance of winning either the nomination or the general
election.
That's probably true. And that was true of Howard Dean in the
Democratic party, too. But note that while Dean didn't get to be
king, he still wound up in an excellent position to be a king-maker
within his party. I wouldn't mind seeing Ron Paul end up with a
similar influence in the Republican party.
@Isaac Bartram
I find it worth noting that every LP activist in Fla that I
know has been bitching about Rittberg/Dondero and his asshole
attempts to hijack libertarianism since about 1987.
Separated at
birth?
I don't know about you, but I see a distinct resemblance!
@Roy Haddad
Chris didn't seem to take a position either way. In any case,
he has a point. Whether you believe in modern economic liberalism
or not, you can support state's rights.
True enough, and I think it needs to be recognized that different
populations will prefer different political institutions. If
Washington state wants state-wide health care, social safety nets
and stringent environmental protections, fine with me, as long as I
have the option of living in a state that has different ideas about
the role of government.
Federalism is libertarianism's (and everyone else's) friend!
|6.10.07 @ 1:44AM|#
Boy, let's hope that definition of "Surge" is applied to other libertarian hopefuls. We'd be out of existence as a movement in months.
Wow, Eric Dondero rooting for the end of libertarianism.
I'm just surprised that he'd actually admit he was just a Red shill
here.
John Rhoads|6.10.07 @ 2:34AM|#
I actually think Ron Paul's chances of winning a general
election are far greater than his chances of winning the nomination
(which I agree are not good). If Hillary gets the Democratic
nomination this is doubly true. In a Ron Paul/Hillary Clinton
matchup, RP is clearly the best anti-war candidate, and it is
likely that this election is essentially going to be a referendum
on the war. Oddly enough, I do believe that Ron Paul is the
Republican party's best chance to win the presidency, because a
pro-war candidate really has no chance in '08. Unfortunately, he
probably wont win the nomination, but I'll be happy if he gets
10-20% of the vote. Say what you want about Kucinich, but his
importance in politics clearly increased as a result of his
reasonable showing in the Democratic primary.
The one possible reason for optimism I can see with Ron Paul in the
primary is that primaries, like off-year elections, tend to have
poor turnouts. This is only an advantage to someone like Paul who
has fewer general supporters, but ones that are more likely to go
out of their way to vote in a primary.
|6.10.07 @ 3:29AM|#
I said: "You seem like a nice person who doesn't realize that
the socialist beliefs you hold lead to utter misery if pursued to
their logical end. Please reconsider."
Neu Mejican said: "Thank god no idea/belief ever held is pursued to
their logical end in reality...including those that you hold
jh.
In the real world principles are used to guide policy ... caveats
and adjustments for the insufficiencies of the abstracted/schematic
model included."
Neu Mejican (and Chris Welton, too): Have you read Hayek's "The
Road to Serfdom"? Have you read how Hitler's national socialism was
pursued to its logical bitter end, with concentration camps, little
kids given Panzerschrecks and sent out against tanks, and the
near-complete ruin of Germany? Have you read about the starvation
and complete subjection of North Koreans under that regime's
version of communism? The tens of millions who perished in Mao's
Great Leap Forward? The millions killed in China's Cultural
Revolution? The murder of any non-proletarian in Cambodia's killing
fields under the Khmer Rouge? Or Stalin's purges? Or ...
Fer chrissakes, how many times must the awful, bitter logic of
every possible permutation of socialism be carried out to its
logical, horrifying end before we finally say, "Never again?"
|6.10.07 @ 3:50AM|#
Amen, Brother Emery!
Why even hard-core Libertarians would not support Ron Paul is
beyond me. The LP needs to just continue its slow roll up the food
chain through county commissions and state houses. Sure, Rep. Paul
is not pure LP material. But for now, he has schrewdly used the
Republican Party to get the liberty message out to more Americans
in 3 debates than have heard it in years. Even without the
nomination, a good showing by Paul should encourage more in the LP
to make serious runs in the US House. Folks at Cato could come down
from the ivory tower and encourage change from WITHIN the
gov't.
Personally, even though I have voted LP in the past two cycles, I
didn't even know who the man was before last month. Now, I just
made my first contribution to a candidate (EVER) this week. While
we may follow this stuff pretty close, we can safely assume that
the 90% of the 98% who didn't select Paul in polling don't even
know who is, or think that he's Ru Paul's dad.
Fox polling also shows an interesting trend. Benito Guiliani falls
from 35 to 22 from April to June. Who picks up the slack? Well,
Rep. Paul goes from 0 to 2 and Unsure goes up from 11 to 19?!
Obviously, the more they learn about Benito, the less they like
him. There is no reason we can't pick up 5% to 8% of the Unsure's.
If we can get in the 8% to 10% range by Fall, RP's name will have
to be mentioned along with the top tier, based on momentum alone.
Then we can avoid the premature 'thinning of the herd' so loved by
the MSM. Keep the faith! Go ahead and try the Kool-Aid...tastes
pretty good to me!
www.ronpaul2008.com
|6.10.07 @ 3:53AM|#
Chris Welton -- thank you for your courteous, thoughtful reply.
My comments on your remarks:
You said: "What I am saying is that I believe (morally) healthcare
should be available to all, but any attempt to do it at the federal
level will end up with the exact problems you refer to. It has to
be done at a local level (by people who really give a damn and
aren't taking bribes), where those who make mistakes can be held
accountable, and where real criticisms can be raised. Please note
that this is also the level at which oponents of this idea will
have the greatest voice."
I have worked at Hawaii's state legislature for seven years now as
a legislative aide. I started off as center-rightist who thought
government was basically good, but a bit too large. The experience
has turned me into a hardcore libertarian. The problem is this:
politicians are scum. They can't be trusted. They can and will do
anything to get votes, and they have an insatiable appetite for
other people's money. So, yes, it seems at first glance that
morally, how can any with a heart be opposed to healthcare for
everyone? The problem is, what you're proposing is to accomplish
this by an incredi bly immoral act -- forcibly confiscating money
from citizens, with fines and jail time for anyone who resists. Is
this OK to serve the purportedly moral end you seek? Ask yourself
this -- are you willing to personally pick up a gun and go to your
neighbors' houses and demand they give you money so you can give it
to others so they can buy health care? If not, does that become
somehow moral if you instead hire strangers to do the same
thing?
Chris says: "As for the environment, it seems to me that there are
quite a few practices of major corporations that really do impede
on the rights of others by polluting the air they breath and the
water they drink (without compensation). Once again, however, any
attempt to force these issues at a federal level as opposed to
local action is bound to end up as inefficiency, incompetence, and
the destruction of rights."
As a libertarian, I have no problem with holding corporations
responsible for the harm they do to others via the pollution they
emit. I thought you were talking about something more sinister. In
practice, though, the environmental lobbyists I've met at the state
legislature do not stop at the reasonable problem you've outlined
-- they have this radical, no-growth of any kind agenda. So, be
careful, since the people you appoint may go far beyond the
laudable goal you raised.
Chris says: "And even with the last point what I am talking about
is finding ways to make sure people aren't sleeping in the streets
in my own neighborhood, not an overarching welfare state. It will
take a mixture of private charity and local government action, but
even as I said before, those who oppose it will be able to directly
join in the debate."
I'm all for the private charity solution. The local government
action you talk about is morally wrong, for the reasons pointed out
above about forcible extraction of taxes.
Chris says: "All that aside, I am talking about what i want to do
here in Washington State, and the Seattle area specifically. I'm
not advocating forcing these issues onto anyone else. Do you see
this as rampant socialism or community action?"
You're talking about socialism on a smaller scale (except for the
pollution amelioration), but it's still socialism. You're still
talking about forcing your solutions on members of the local
community. It's not as bad as doing that to the entire nation, but
please remember -- the politicians you entrust this to, no matter
how pleasant they may seem when you meet them one-on-one, are still
scum -- and the policies you want them to carry out are probably
not policies that a pleasant, nice person like you would ever
contemplate personally imposing on your neighbors.
Again, thank you for your cordial, thoughtful answers -- something
that is often missing on these oftentimes rancorous threads at
Reason.
|6.10.07 @ 5:03AM|#
For me too. I also contributed money to Ron Paul. Also first
time I have ever contributed money to a political campaign. (but I
have given money to the NRA before).
Gilmore, good post. I do not think Obama would be worse than any of
the top three republicans. I think he might even be better for the
Republican party than any of the top 3. Specially Guliani.
|6.10.07 @ 5:16AM|#
kwais -- which top 3 Republicans? The latest polls show Giuliani
in the lead, with the next three -- McCain, Romney, and Fred
Thompson -- essentially in a statistical dead heat, with the
ranking of 2nd thru 4th place depending on which poll you look
at.
As for Obama being better than those top four -- on which issues?
He has the more libertarian stance on Iraq and social issues in
general, but like all the Democratic candidates he's a hard core
statist on economic issues. And for anyone who falls for the notion
that a politician who sounds moderate on positions where they're
lacking a political track record, look no further than GWB prior to
the 2000 election. Put Obama in office, and I guarantee that the
rhetoric will get flung out the window on a lot of issues once his
supporters start cashing in their chips.
I'm voting for Ron Paul in the primary, then after he loses,
whatever no-chance masochist is running on the Libertarian Party
ticket. I've fallen for the R/D siren song too many times -- won't
get sucked into that again.
|6.10.07 @ 5:21AM|#
jh - I can understand why you feel the way you do about
polititians (belvieve me I can.. I had an uncle who worked as an
aide in the UN who died of a stress heart attack around the end of
the Iran/Contra scandal.. It was my first real look into
politics.... Suffice it to say I was not impressed)
Two quick questions though...
1. What do you think about "things like roads"?
2. How would you feel about like live feeds from legislators'
offices and lie detector tests for elected officials?
Kaligula|6.10.07 @ 5:27AM|#
Me, too. i contributed to the Paul Campaign. First time in a
long time for a politician, that's for sure.
I do however support libertarian outfits (like Reason, Libertarian
Party, ACLU).
However, if Rudy or Fred get the GOP, I'm crossing over to vote for
the democrat, I don't care even it's likely to be Hillary.
If it's Mitt, I vote for the libertarian candidate.
I'm still a registered republican, so I will be voting for Ron Paul
in the primary.
|6.10.07 @ 6:26AM|#
JH,
To answer your question:
The three I don't want to see elected are
Romney, McCain, and Guliani.
So you know where I am coming from, I am not opposed to the war. I
support it and I think it is winnable, and we should win it.
I think the candidate who is most right about the war is
McCain.
BUT, I think that Ron Paul is right about every other issue.
I will vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and if he doesn't win, and
Fred Thompson does, I will be ok with voting for Fred
Thompson.
If any of the three I mentioned before win, I will vote
Libertarian, or not vote.
I think that the actual positions that Obama or Hillary would take
while in office are probably worse than those of any Republican
candidate, but that they would be opposed by the republicans.
There would actually be a place to go to for people who oppose big
government. There would be no place for voters to go if Guliani,
Romney, or McCain won.
|6.10.07 @ 6:32AM|#
I mean yeah there would still be the libertarian party.
But if the posters here are any indication, the libertarian party
has no hopes.
It seems there is no compromise with big L libertarians, so no one
could get elected to a group of 8 of them, let alone to a whole
country.
I mean by that, that I hear people wont vote for Ron Paul because
of where he stands on abortion (even though it won't affect their
personal freedom at all) So they would by their inaction or lack of
support allow someone who will continue the actual aggressive
violation of their rights that is the drug war and the income
tax.
They don't like that he is personally opposed to abortion. Or that
he is christian, or whatever else.
So our rights will continue to be violated, and our constitution
desecrated because the socialists and the theocons constantly are
able to vote for a lesser of two evils.
Fluffy|6.10.07 @ 7:22AM|#
That Utah thing surprised me. I think the 2nd place finish can be chalked up to Romney sucking all the oxygen out of the air on the Republican side, because the other "big names" drew pathetic numbers. But the 5% number is high. It's state party delegates at a convention, which means it's the MOST conventional Republican sample available. It's also in Utah, which is the MOST pro-Bush sample still left in the country. If Paul can get 5% of those people at this point in the campaign, it's at least something to be pleased about.
|6.10.07 @ 7:30AM|#
Ilan Dunlap Little said Boortz "has gone off the deep end" with
"anti immigrant shallowness." I don't listen to Boortz but will
assume this is true. However, how does Boortz differ from Ron
Paul's anti immigrant shallowness? Paul voted for walling in
America.
Andrew complains about the libertarian lable being hijacked by
moronslike Dondero and Rudy. True. But what about anti-immigrant,
social conservatives? What about a candidate who is anti-abortion,
anti-immigration and wants to go so far as to change the
Constitution to make citizenship determined, not by birth place as
has been the US tradition but on the citizenship of one's parents.
Funny the same candidate claims he supports the Constitution while
wanting to delete sections. And where does the Constitution give
the Feds the right to set up a wall around America -- a literal
wall costing billions. But this expenditure of billions comes from
a man who claims to be the taxpayer's friend.
If I wanted a social conservative in the White House I'd join the
Republican Party --- oh, wait, that is what the Ron Paul supporters
are suggesting. Count me out of this debacle. All that will happen
is that a large sum of money will be flushed down the electoral
toilet and libertarianism will be associated with xenophobic
anti-immigrant Know-Nothingism. I half suspect he'll end the
campaign after a couple of primaries with a huge sum in the bank
which will go to other projects he has in mind. So it wouldn't
surprise me one bit if most the funds raised for this
"Presidential" bid gets spent elsewhere. Only time will see.
But Bircher-like banking conspiracies, anti-immigrant rants and
walls around America -- hell, that's not libertarian to me. But the
mere faintest whiff of political power and libertarians go
gaa-gaa.
Fluffy|6.10.07 @ 7:38AM|#
Skeptic -
While I don't agree with the Wall, the Constitution plainly allows
the federal government the powers both of defense and of regulating
cross-border trade. If that government decides it wants to
militarize the southern border and prevent the movement of foreign
nationals across that border, I may not like it but it has the
authority to do so.
I see the merit of both sides of the birthright citizenship
argument. [I personally favor leaving things as they are - but I
can also understand that when the birthright citizenship rule was
established, it wasn't really feasible for more than a tiny number
of people to make a trip to the US solely and specifically for the
purpose of securing birthright citizenship for a child.] And since
the Constitution provides a mechanism for amending itself, if you
use that mechanism to pass an Amendment changing the requirements
for citizenship you can't really be accused of undermining the
Constitution.
The gold standard thing is more important to Paul than it is to me,
but I think that's partially generational. I never lived in an
America that actually had a gold standard. That might make me miss
it less. So if he rides that particular hobby horse more than I
would, I'll try to tolerate it.
|6.10.07 @ 7:46AM|#
A question about Ron Paul'ss contributions..
Ok, I understand he can transfer the money to his Congressional
re-election account.
But what about a non-GOP Presidential account? ( note: I don't
think this scenario is likely. I am just curiousif it is possible).
Could he stack up like $ 10 million by early 2008, lose/drop-out in
time to run as an Independent/LP/whatever, and take that money with
him?
|6.10.07 @ 7:48AM|#
Skeptic,
I wholly disagree with Ron Paul on immigration also.
But I think that without socialism the opposers of immigration
would not get so riled up.
Of course the alternative to Ron Paul is not your dream candidate,
but Guliani or Hillary or some such. Really no improvement on
immigration or anything else.
I am not telling you to become republican, or hold your nose or
anything. By all means do your thing. You are part of this
entertaining tea party, of our country continuing down this road of
socialism.
|6.10.07 @ 7:51AM|#
OK,
I take back my last comment. Fluffy made a much better point, and
argument than me. On all counts.
tomwright|6.10.07 @ 8:04AM|#
Stop with the "he can't win so why support him" crap.
Most of us seem to vote out of fear of who may win if we do not
vote for the lesser of two evils.
The point of supporting someone that carries your views is to get
those views recognition, and to grow support until someone down the
road does win. If not this this year, maybe next, or the year
after....
In addition, supporting and voting for those with your views sends
a message to those that DO win.
A message that may mitigate the damage they do, and maybe stop some
of it.
Sitting on your ass and waiting for a political messiah is just
passive aggressive apathy. You deserve what you get. The problem is
that those that are trying to do something, whether great or small,
get it too, because YOU sat on your ass. So get off your ass an go
flip a lever or punch a button in a voting booth for someone that
you actually agree with, even if they are not perfect.
We need to stop waiting for a political messiah, stop voting out of
fear and vote what we believe. Vote what you believe and send a
message to those that do win, that their support is not as great as
they think it is. Send a message to others that may agree with you
that there are others out there.
Allowing fear of one candidate to make you abandon the one you
agree with, to support someone you do not, just plays into the
hands of the cynical power mongers that are running our government
now.
What does a dishonest vote for a politician you dislike get you
other than dishonest politicians and a government you
dislike?
What does sitting on your ass and refusing to vote get you other
than an ass in office?
Guy Montag|6.10.07 @ 8:17AM|#
I guess this never became the weekend open thread. Will post in
the previous one.
Gongratulations Ron Paul and to your supporters! I still see this
shaping up as a John Anderson replay, but you never know.
|6.10.07 @ 8:38AM|#
Most of the polls claim a 3.5 to 6 % margin of error (MoE). If the margin of error is 6% and Paul is sitting at 2% then the MoE indicates he could actually be as high as 8% putting him right up there with Newt. Then again it could mean he is also as low as 0 but that is only because negative numbers are not allowed.
Edward|6.10.07 @ 9:25AM|#
If any of the three I mentioned before win, I will vote
Libertarian, or not vote.
What's the difference?
Fluffy|6.10.07 @ 9:37AM|#
Well, this $5 million rumor is all over the place now, but the absence of confirmation makes me a little skeptical.
|6.10.07 @ 9:42AM|#
The margin of error reported for the poll only applies to a
candidate reported at near 50%.
I'm not sure why they do it this way, but the reported error would
apply to a close two way race. I think the most likely reason is
that using the poll to forecast who is in the lead is involves a
smaller error when it isn't so close (in a two way race.)
I don't remember the formula, exactly, but it generally results in
candidates with one or two percent with an error of less than one
percent.
So, it is unlikely that if he gets 2% in the poll that he has more
support than 3% or less than 1%. (Using the reported standard
error, would mean that there is only a 5% chance that Paul has more
than 7% support. No! The truth is more like that there is only a 5%
chance that he has more than 2.6%...)
Again, I don't remember the exact formula or know where to find it
off hand. I will check it out and report it later.
Those of us who are long time LP supporters discovered this a long
time ago. We are quite used to candidates who poll in the low
single digits.
tomwright|6.10.07 @ 10:01AM|#
Edward, The difference between voting and non-voting is the
message it sends.
Voting sends a positive message, either a true one if you vote your
conscience, or a false one if you vote out of fear of a particular
candidate.
Not voting sends a negative message, either that you are satisfies
and see no need to vote or you are complacent or disgusted and will
not vote. Any of those messages means that you are unimportant to
the rulers and therefore you need not be addressed.
GoRonPaul|6.10.07 @ 10:03AM|#
Paul Running Second in Utah GOP Straw Poll
Deep within mormon country one would expect Romney to lead... But,
Paul coming in 2nd?!!! Ron Paul doubters take notice...
Mitt Romney 1042 (80.46%)
Ron Paul 70 (5.41%)
Rudy Giuliani 57 (4.40%)
John McCain 54 (4.17%)
Tom Tancredo 19 (1.47%)
Tommy Thompson 16 (1.24%)
Fred Thompson (write-in) 15 (1.16%)
Mike Huckabee 12 (0.93%)
Sam Brownback 8 (0.62%)
Stan Lockhart (write-in) 1 (0.08%)
Newt Gingrich (write-in) 1 (0.08%)
http://home.utgop.org/page.php?page_id=4
mw|6.10.07 @ 10:38AM|#
"If any of the three I mentioned before win, I will vote Libertarian, or not vote. What's the difference?"- ed
"The difference between voting and non-voting is the message it sends." - tw
There is another voting heuristic that furthers a libertarian
agenda, can have practical positive results (by at least minimizing
the growth rate of the state), and has the potential of investing
libertarians with actual political clout.
Whatever the percentage of the electorate that libertarians
represent, whether it is 9% or 20%, if they vote as a block for
divided government, they immediately become the brokers of an
evenly split partisan electorate. They arguably become the single
most most potent voting block in the country, specifically because
they are willing to vote either Democratic or Republican as a
block.
Divided Government is documented by Niskanen et.al. to work in a
practical real-world manner to restrain the growth of the state. As
a voting strategy it can be implemented immediately. More
importantly, it can collectively be implemented individually as we
sit in our hot tubs and ponder the sorry state of the world.
In the mid-terms I voted straight Democratic (for federal offices).
In 2008 I'll vote for the Republican nominee for president. In the
primaries I'll vote for the Republican candidate I prefer, either
Paul or Hagel.
It is a practical libertarian way to vote.
|6.10.07 @ 10:41AM|#
I'll tell you guys one thing, if Ron Paul is still in the race and I'm able to vote for him in my states primary it will be the first time in my life where I don't feel like I need to take a shower after voting.
Jennifer|6.10.07 @ 10:52AM|#
I'm switching from registered Independent to registered Republican so I can vote for Paul in the GOP primary. (At least in the primary my vote has a chance of counting for something; due to electoral-college bullshit, voting for Paul in the presidential race would likely be wasted, since my state generally goes Democrat.)
|6.10.07 @ 11:21AM|#
"Gongratulations Ron Paul and to your supporters! I still see
this shaping up as a John Anderson replay, but you never
know."
Well, I think that it will be a bigger deal than that, but let's
not forget that maybe the Anderson campaign pushed Reagan to the
right.
|6.10.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Deep within mormon country one would expect Romney to
lead... But, Paul coming in 2nd?!!! Ron Paul doubters take
notice...
Obviously, Ron Paul's supporters have rigged this poll just like
they do with everything. So clearly, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain,
as the only candidates with (legitimately) more than 4% in the poll
are separating themselves from the rest of the pack.
|6.10.07 @ 11:56AM|#
"'End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know
their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter
the U.S. illegally will remain strong.'
Seems at odds with his stated position to base policy on the
constitution."
Neu Mejican
The applicable part of the Constitution is:
All persons born or naturalized in the US, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US.
If it were just a matter of birthright, why the "and" part? Why
"born" and "subject to..."?
If it were only a matter of being born here the amendment would
read "All persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US"
Brian Defferding|6.10.07 @ 12:36PM|#
The mainstream polls are often something as debatable as those
non-scientific online polls.
The flaws of the online polls are:
a.) They could be subject to spammers
b.) People may have the opportunity to vote more than once
(depending on if the poll binds the vote to the IP address, some
don't).
c.) They may not be from registered voters.
However the mainstream polls like Rasmussen, Zogby, etc. flaws
are:
a.) Their sample base is miniscule - no more than 1,000 people
usually.
b.) Can come from areas with strong support of certain parties
(i.e., half the sample could come from a highly-Democratic southern
part of California).
c.) They don't usually call cellphone users, wiping out a MASSIVE
sample base.
I think they both have their pros and cons. It seems, however, that
the traditional mainstream polls is what still matters with big
corporate media. We'll find out if they're wrong in the forthcoming
year.
|6.10.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Jay D.
You do realize that there are plenty of people born in the US that
have accepted residence and citizenship in other countries and
therefore "not subject to the jurisdiction " of the US.
To me, that statement implies you can't have dual citizenship, not
that the US can reject you being within their jurisdiction. Of
course, you can interpret it however you feel like to justify
shipping infants back to mexico or wherever, but I believe my
interpretation is what the founders were talking about.
Mike Laursen|6.10.07 @ 12:44PM|#
Sigh, I hate answering my own question:
Many countries do not grant automatic birthright citizenship to
children born on their "soil". There are estimated to be about 11
million people in the world who have no citizenship or "effective
nationality". Many of them are refugees, but some have fallen
through the cracks.
Personally, I would like to see mankind evolve beyond drawing
border lines all over and classifying everyone in the world
according to their citizenship. I'm not talking world government
here, either. We need a new paradigm that goes beyond the
nation-state, where good people can be free citizens of the world,
traveling around freely. With the Internet and jet travel, some
people already effectively live in this world.
|6.10.07 @ 1:32PM|#
In response to the various posts on the Utah GOP straw poll
showing Ron Paul running second in Utah: I'm a Mormon convert and a
libertarian, and so for the past three years I've had an upclose
and personal view of how Mormons think.
I think the second place Utah finish, while possibly gamed somehow
by Ron Paul supporters, is probably legit. Mormons are mostly very
very very conservative (did I mention "very"?), but there is a
libertarian strain to them. They specifically moved to the Salt
Lake Valley in the mid-1800s to escape massive violent religious
persecution in Ohio, then Missouri, then Illinois. So they have
this libertarian, leave-me-the-heck-alone undercurrent, like much
of the Rocky Mountain West. Also, the more thoughtful members of
this tight-knit bunch are aware of the implications of "agency"
(what most others call "free agency"). Mormon scriptures have a
story of Jesus advocating for free agency, and the devil advocating
for coercion and force -- that is, Jesus said he'd come to earth
and let us all choose whether to behave in such a way as to return
to God, while the devil said he'd force everyone to be good whether
we wanted to or not, and make sure everyone returned to God.
What I'm getting at here is this -- it's a tremendously unlikely
long shot, but if Romney wins the Republican nomination, and Ron
Paul pulls in a respectible showing, and one or two influential
libertarian-leaning Mormons join Romney's campaign, Romney might
pick Ron Paul as VP to poach on Democratic and independent
territory by picking up that libertarian-leaning bloc.
|6.10.07 @ 1:45PM|#
...you can interpret it however you feel like to justify
shipping infants back to mexico or wherever, but I believe my
interpretation is what the founders were talking about.
Lost_In_Translation
Technical point: The language on US citizenship was introduced in
the 14th amendment certified A.D. 1868 (i.e. not of "the
founders").
Before that there was no such thing as a citizen of the "United
States". You were a citizen of one of the several States. How they
determined citizenship--I don't happen to know. I imagine various
ways.
|6.10.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Chris Welton said: "jh - I can understand why you feel the way
you do about polititians (belvieve me I can.. I had an uncle who
worked as an aide in the UN who died of a stress heart attack
around the end of the Iran/Contra scandal.. It was my first real
look into politics.... Suffice it to say I was not impressed)
Two quick questions though...
1. What do you think about "things like roads"?
2. How would you feel about like live feeds from legislators'
offices and lie detector tests for elected officials?"
1. Regarding "Things like roads" -- we live in a very statist
society, so in order to gradually change public opinion to get to a
more libertarian society we'd have to first demonstrate that
libertarianism works for some of the less difficult things, and to
get partial solutions to the trickier stuff. We already have
libertarian partial solutions to roads -- we have some private, or
public-private, toll roads or freeways. Even in a thoroughly
statist place like Hawaii, the overwhelmingly Democratic
legislature is looking at a toll freeway to relieve horrendous
traffic congestion in the Ewa plain.
A more general answer to your question -- a more libertarian
approach would be to finance most if not everything government does
by voluntary donations, not mandated taxation. For example, if you
wanted to use the roads, you'd pay user fees or gasoline taxes
directly targeted to the actual users. So, if you didn't want to
pay those fees, you could choose to ride a bike or take one of the
private buses that would replace public buses in a libertarian
society. The trickest problem to voluntary fees is national
defense. One possibility is that subscription to our military would
be done through voluntary donations, but any free-riders who
declined to pay would be listed on a website that declared these
people were not protected by the federal government, and any
foreign country or foreign national that wanted to kidnap, enslave,
torture, or rob them could do so -- and the federal government
would not lift a finger to protect them. Social shaming could also
be used to reign in the free riders via such a website.
An example of a real-life libertarian solution is the Mormon
church, to which I belong. I voluntarily tithe 10% of my income to
the church to pay for all of its functions and charitable programs,
and serve in an unpaid job for the church (aka a "calling"),
because I believe in most of what the church is doing. If I were to
quit being a full tithe payer, some social shaming would kick in --
I wouldn't be eligible to enter the various temples, I would be
stripped of any significant callings, I wouldn't be able to
purchase the temple garments that serve as a visible mark of
integrity, etc.
2. Live feeds and lie detector tests for legislators -- good
question. Such intrusive, civil-rights-violating things seem like
anathema to my libertarian sensibilities, and lie detector tests
can be gamed by extreme sociopaths. (Also, this would infringe on
the civil rights of staffers who aren't decision-makers.) Do we
really want politics to be dominated by politicians who are such
good liars that they can fake out a polygraph? A more libertarian
approach would be getting more "sunshine" in deliberative meetings
-- in Hawaii, all hearings and decision-making meetings are
theoretically open to the public, but the real decisions get made
in closed-door caucuses or private conversations. In effect, the
public meetings turn into Kabuki theatre, where the decisions that
have already been privately made are given a show of stilted public
debate. Forcing any or all discussions of legislative business by
two or more lawmakers to be in a public meeting would be a big
libertarian change for the better.
James Maynard|6.10.07 @ 2:13PM|#
If the money rumor is even close to true, then this alone would
gain SERIOUS credibility for RP.
Using some to advertise in NH and Iowa (I'm thinking cable TV,
$20/shot) could build major name recognition. NH will certainly be
very receptive to his low-tax/anti-war/pro-liberty viewpoints. A
top 3 finish in NH and we are at frontrunner status, baby!
Yeah!
JM
|6.10.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Before that there was no such thing as a citizen of the
"United States".
Considering one of the requirements in Articles 1 & 2, for
members of Congress and the President, was a certain length of time
as "a Citizen of the United States", I don't think the concept was
as nebulous as you make it out to be.
|6.10.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Actually, now that I think of it, shouldn't the Paul campaign be publishing their donation figures in ounces of gold rather than a fiat currency? What hypocrites!
db|6.10.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Dondero:
I'm glad you're wasting all your effort on smearing Ron Paul and
trying to deny the real support he has among a large number of
people. It's heartening to see that the only appeal you might have
is among fans of schadenfreude, who are enjoying you embarrass
yourself.
|6.10.07 @ 2:25PM|#
If it were only a matter of being born here the amendment
would read "All persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US"
I think the idea is that if you are born in the US and then leave
to live permanently outside of US jurisdiction in another country,
then you are no longer considered a US citizen.
I'm not sure how the "subject to the jurisdiction of" could be used
to exclude children born to illegal aliens. So long as they reside
in the US, they are indeed subject to US jurisdiction.
Andrew|6.10.07 @ 2:26PM|#
RE: skeptic
"Andrew complains about the libertarian label being hijacked by morons like Dondero and Rudy. True. But what about anti-immigrant, social conservatives?"
You must not be paying attention. Everytime Paul gets asked by the
media why he's running as a Republican instead of a Libertarian, he
makes it clear he is a Repubublican, not a Libertarian. He'll
occasionally say he's a Libertarian-leaning Republican but that's
not saying you're a Libertarian. It's people other than Paul saying
this so you implying that Paul is hijacking the Libertarian name is
100% false.
"What about a candidate who is anti-abortion..."
As someone who would ideally like to see a stateless society with
no government at any level (I guess I would describe myself as a
market-anarchist), I also consider myself pro-choice. However, that
doesn't mean I have anything against someone who has a different
opinion. You don't need to look at Ron's personal opinion on that
matter, you need to look at his position on how the Federal
government should deal with abortion and that position is 100%
Constitutional. Whether you agree with Roe v. Wade or not, it's not
Constitutional. The Constitution clearly leaves those type of
decisions to the state.
"But Bircher-like banking conspiracies..."
Are you referring to his position on the Federal Reserve? If so,
I'm confused. The rest of your comments seem to come from the point
of view of a true libertarian (the less gov't the better) but if
you think that the Federal Reserve does not have a negative impact
on the economy, is not a threat to a minimal state and/or is
Constitutional then I'm not sure where you're coming from. Also,
can you point me to one of Paul's "anti-immigrant rants"?
Like I said earlier, ideally, I'd like to see a completely
stateless society but I still feel a Constitutional federal
government would be exponentionally better than our current
situtation. At the very least, it would give states the ability to
start minimizing government without federal interference. IMO, it's
the only chance (however small) that we'll have to start a serious
trend towards liberty in any meaningful way w/o waiting for it to
completely hit the fan.
RE: jh
"I think the second place Utah finish, while possibly gamed somehow by Ron Paul supporters, is probably legit."
How would Paul supporters game a vote that was only open to
convention delegates?
|6.10.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Uh, "Vast MSM Conspiracy" is actually me, and that was supposed to be a parody of CNN/FoxNews/MSNBC's reaction to their debate polls. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.
|6.10.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Hey guys, all you need to know is Bush was right!
And the proof that "Bush was right" is an email* from
Dondero/Rittberg to HarryBrowne.org.
Holy fuck!!! I'm sold. How could I have been so wrong?
*In March, 2005 no less. Wow, now two years later, how's Georgie's
fabulous Mesopotamian adventure going?
|6.10.07 @ 4:07PM|#
I think the idea is that if you are born in the US and then
leave to live permanently outside of US jurisdiction in another
country, then you are no longer considered a US citizen.
No, you are a US citizen until you formally renounce your US
citizenship or the US government through due process strips you of
your citizenship.
There are only a few causes by which the government revoke your
citizenship.
|6.10.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Correction:
There are only a few causes by which the government
can revoke your citizenship.
|6.10.07 @ 4:11PM|#
*In March, 2005 no less. Wow, now two years later, how's
Georgie's fabulous Mesopotamian adventure going?
IIRC, it was already quite the clusterfuck at that point. Anyone
who said Bush's Iraq policy had been vindicated at anytime after
July 2003 was either lying or high on the broccoli-flavored Bush
Kool-aid.
|6.10.07 @ 4:17PM|#
crimethink, surely you can understand the impulse to be
charitable.
Is not the Good Book full of admonitions to be so?
:)
Whatchu talkinbout Willis?|6.10.07 @ 4:28PM|#
re: Dondero's argument "Bush Was Right"
"From: Eric Dondero
To: Joe Dehn
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: Rockwell, Raimondo, biggest libertarian losers in Bush
Doctrine success
by Eric Dondero R.
...all Anti-War libertarians are incredibly big losers in the
recent successes of the Bush Doctrine - Democracy breaking out with
lightening speed in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi and even Israel/Palestine
post-Iraqi Elections...
[they said] that the entire Middle East was going to explode over
our invasion of Iraq. That it would NEVER cause democracy and
freedom to flourish in other Nations in the Region. (Some would say
that it even has had coat- tails outside of the Region, witness
Ukraine)...
...
[so] Why is it that they [critics] are getting a free pass. Nobody
is questioning them to explain why it is that all their predictions
were DEAD WRONG???
hmm.
The only thing that comes to mind at the moment is... this guy must
be some kind of special fucking idiot to have not hidden this
comment in shame, hoping that it would vanish down the memory
hole...
but no = he LINKS to it. In 2007.
I mean, that takes balls. Big balls of stupid.
recent assessment of state of Democracy in ME
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/world/middleeast/07democracy.html
Snippets
"CAIRO, June 6 - This is election season in the Middle East. Syria
just held presidential and parliamentary elections. Algeria held
parliamentary elections. Egyptians will be asked to vote next week
on a new upper house of Parliament. There will soon be elections in
Jordan, Morocco and Oman, followed by elections in Qatar. So is
democracy suddenly taking root in the strongman's last regional
stronghold?
The consensus among democracy advocates, diplomats and citizens
interviewed around the Middle East is that the reverse is true.
Elections, it appears, have increasingly become a tool used by
authoritarian leaders to claim legitimacy.
"There is a state of depression and lack of trust, or faith, among
the Arab masses in the regimes and little belief that these
elections can lead to the change aspired to," said Jaffar
al-Shayeb, a member of the municipal council in Qatif, Saudi
Arabia, an advisory body without legislative authority."
[snip]
"In Egypt's parliamentary elections last year, witnesses reported
that the police fired live ammunition at voters - killing some - to
keep them from casting ballots for candidates aligned with the
Muslim Brotherhood. As Egypt gears up for elections to the upper
house of Parliament next week, security agents have imprisoned more
than 150 members of the Brotherhood, which although officially
banned is the only viable political opposition in the
country.
In Syria the presidential election was a referendum on one
candidate, President Bashar al-Assad, in a country that has
sentenced democracy advocates to several years in prison for
signing a petition asking for political reforms and recently handed
down a 12-year sentence to one man for membership in the Muslim
Brotherhood.
"The system is rigged to bring to power people who are already in
power," said Daoud Kuttab, director of the Institute of Modern
Media at Al Quds University in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
"That is what explains low voter turnout and why elections are
turning people away.
With the outcome almost always certain and the manipulation so
evident, why do the leaders even bother? From Syria to Bahrain,
elections have helped bleed off some internal and external pressure
for change without making any substantial alteration to the power
structure, opposition political leaders and diplomats said.""
|6.10.07 @ 4:35PM|#
From Eric's e-mail to harrybrowne.org...
Note - Eric Dondero is a former top staffer for US Congressman
Ron Paul
You were his driver, right?
He is also one of the Co-Founders of the Neo-libertarian
movement,
How does one "found" a "movement"?
which supports free market economics, civil liberties, but a
hawkish/pro- military foreign policy,
"Pro-military foreign policy"? Meaningless. You're really in favor
of using a tool, but you have no opinion or idea when or where or
how it should it be used. That's great.
"Hey, Eric, should I get new windows for my home to save on my
energy bills? And where can I learn how to install those?"
"I really like my hammer."
ala P.J. O'Rourke.
How childlike. "We're like P.J. O'Rourke! He's funny! People like
him!"
|6.10.07 @ 4:37PM|#
crimethink, surely you can understand the impulse to be
charitable.
Understand? Yes.
Act on? Not in this case! ;-)
In any event, don't forget that God gave Rudy the proverbial shot
across the bow at the last debate with the lightning. If he doesn't
repent and cling to the ways of limited govt, I fully expect, at
the next debate, for the lights to go out and a giant, ghostly
finger to write condemnations of Rudy on the wall behind him, in a
language only Ron Paul can decipher.
That would be SOOOOOOOO cool.
GoRonPaul|6.10.07 @ 5:00PM|#
I hadn't seen that Dondero letter before... my gawd that's
hysterical...
And a new verb has entered my vocabulary...
"I can't believe he donderode himself in front of all those
people!"
|6.10.07 @ 5:23PM|#
I'm not sure how the "subject to the jurisdiction of" could be
used to exclude children born to illegal aliens. So long as they
reside in the US, they are indeed subject to US jurisdiction.
crimethink
If there is such a thing as "born in and subject to the
jurisdiction of", it stands to reason there must be such a thing as
"born in and not subject to the jurisdiction of".
|6.10.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Ron Paul, drawing two percent in the latest Fox News poll, is
becoming a magnet for disaffected voters, those who can't stand the
current front runners.
I figure libertarians comprise one or two percent of the voting
bloc.
|6.10.07 @ 5:38PM|#
"No, you are a US citizen until you formally renounce your US
citizenship or the US government through due process strips you of
your citizenship."
Sure but you still have to pay your taxes...
"persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware
that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have
no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax
or military service obligations"
|6.10.07 @ 5:47PM|#
If there is such a thing as "born in and subject to the
jurisdiction of", it stands to reason there must be such a thing as
"born in and not subject to the jurisdiction of".
Logically speaking, that actually doesn't stand to reason. Speaking
of the intersection of A and B doesn't prohibit B from being a
subset of A.
Legally, you have a point. It makes sense that they were trying to
exclude some people who were born in the US. I'm not sure which; my
question is, how does the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction"
exclude children born to illegal immigrants? Are such children (and
their parents) not subject to US laws while they are present within
the US?
|6.10.07 @ 6:58PM|#
Crimethink said, "When he talks about keeping govt within the
bounds of the Constitution, and letting states make decisions on
contentious issues like abortion and gay marriage, he may as well
be speaking Esperanto."
La Usona registaro devas resti interne de konstitucia limoj! La
Usonaj sxtatoj devas findecidi polemikajn temojn pri ekzemple
abortigo, samseksemula edzigxo, ktp!
Elektu Ron Paul kai elektu vian propran liberecon! Iru Ron,
Iru!
Cxu vi komprenas?
|6.10.07 @ 7:56PM|#
Andrew:
I've spoke to Paul enough times to know he calls himself a
libertarian often. He is often identified as such in the media. Now
pay attention. I said small l libertarian not big L Libertarian. I
am describing his alleged philosophy not his party status. That he
ran as a big L Libertarian Party candidate in the past doesn't help
either. He says he is a libertarian. I've heard him say it.
I find it bizarre to have you defend anarchism and then say Pauls
positions is consistent with the Constitution (of "no authority" as
Spooner put it). But then I'm not interested in whether he's a
Constitutionalist but whether he is a libertarian.
As for the Fed, no I am not talking about opposition to the Fed. To
his talks about secret plots by international bankers I am
referring. He believes in a conspiracy of international bankers to
install one world government. That is straight from the Birch
Society, which he has praised and which, in return, gives hinm a
100% rating.
As for him attacks on immigration see his close affiliation with
the racist Minutement and his speaking at their conference. They
are a one-issue group, anti-immigration to the core (especially
brown immigrants) and they are in love with Ron Paul. His support
for this policy is why he voted to spend billions to build a wall
locking you inside the US.
|6.10.07 @ 8:28PM|#
James Anderson Merritt
Oh, wow. You know Esperanto?
I took two years of it way back (I went to a very "progressive"
school, don't you know? I wanted to type my response in Esperanto
but couldn't for the life of me do it.
All I remember is the opening line from my speech in our
end-of-term school play "Mi estas spazhomo" (I am a spaceman).
Where it went from there (or what came before) I have no freakin'
idea.
|6.10.07 @ 9:20PM|#
Is Ron paul perfectly aligned with libertarians 100 per cent?
Not with me. But he is the only GOP candidate that even scores
above 50%. And he scores around 90 plus. Rudy isn't even in third
place.
The second closest major party candidate to the libertarian
position is democrat Mike Gravel formerly of Alaska.
Rudy is so far from libertarian that the application of that label
to him is ludicrous. Rudy is less libertarian than Bill Clinton,
another to whom the label was wrongly applied.
Mike Laursen|6.10.07 @ 9:42PM|#
Mi estas spazhomo
So, are all Esperanto nouns borrowed from the vocabulary we used to
taunt each other in junior high? Donde es su
queerdork?
Tom Walls|6.10.07 @ 10:12PM|#
One thing about the landline/housewife polls - almost all of
them say those polled are registered Republicans or Republican
leaners. They do not include people who are ashamed to admit
they're still in the GOP, or ever were. By definition they would
exclude half of independents and third-party registrants. So my
hunch is that they're under-reporting support for RP another couple
of percent.
Now he knows I don't agree with him on Ron vs. Rudy, but let me
point out something in my good friend Eric's favor - he can win an
election. He won a seat on the Soil and Water Conservation District
board going up against a popular incumbent who owned a fish camp in
a district of 200,000.
|6.10.07 @ 10:15PM|#
"Mi estas spazhomo?" Nobody would ever have dared to make such a
"confession" at my high school, which was anything BUT
"progressive." ;-)
I think the word you are thinking of is spelled "spachomo,"
pronounced "spats-HO-mo" -- literally, "space-man." However, this
is the first time I have seen it, probably because the word I
usually encounter for "spaceman" sounds less like a schoolyard
taunt: astronauxto (pronounced ah-stroh-NOW-toe).
I'm no great Esperanto expert, but after playing around with the
language for a couple of years, I can understand much of what I
hear and read, and can form correct sentences on simple topics if I
have the luxury of taking my time to respond. :-) On the other
hand, I tend to make an English-speaker's mistakes when putting my
speech into writing. For example, in the material I wrote above, my
proofreading didn't catch that I had mispelled the word for "and"
(kaj). To my English-reading eye, the finger-slip on the keyboard
that produced "kai" led to something that still sounded correct in
my mind's ear. Oh well.
With so many "natural" languages vying for mindshare in the world
today (here in CA, of course, the next largest gorilla after
English is Spanish -- but one day it could easily be Mandarin
Chinese!), I have never understood why there isn't more of a push
to learn Esperanto right off the bat, simply to enable
intercommunication with foreigners when it counts. I have also
studied several other languages (putting serious time into Spanish,
German, Japanese, French, and Swedish over the years), for reasons
of travel, business, or personal curiosity, but I'm likely never to
be truly fluent in any of them. I came a long way fairly quickly in
Esperanto, however, so I am convinced that it really is as easy to
learn and use -- at least for everyday life -- as people say. The
point being that the investment to learn Esperanto is much lower
than for other "natural" languages; for utility's sake alone, why
not master a language that you can learn more easily than someone
else's national language, and which they have a fighting chance of
understanding more completely than YOUR national language? If
everybody learned only their own national language and Esperanto,
everybody could talk to and write for everyone else in the world.
That's a goal worth pursuing, I think.
Our societies spend so much time, effort, and money going along
with so many silly fads, not to mention translating between
difficult languages, or worse, paying for mistakes caused by a lack
of competent translation. You'd think that people would just get
sick and tired of the waste at some point, and would do something
for themselves that would yield substantial benefit. Just two years
of studying this particular "foreign language" could open the door
to the world of direct, person-to-person communication. But then
again, you'd think that people would get sick and tired of
government's empty promises, horrendous waste, and innumerable
unintended consequences, too, and would at least vote for their own
freedom now and then, as it costs them nothing to do so and the
potential costs of remaining silent are high. The reports of a Ron
Paul "surge" give me hope that people are realizing that they must
act in the own best interests, and not just trust in the system or
the leadership to do the right thing as a matter of course. If this
campaign is in any way successful, perhaps there is also reason to
hope that more people will someday decide that two years to master
"the easiest foreign language" is a worthwhile investment to make
in themselves. You never know. I guess I'll believe it when
longshot Presidential bids fly.
|6.10.07 @ 10:24PM|#
I think the word you are thinking of is spelled "spachomo,"
pronounced "spats-HO-mo"
I thought I had the spelling right, but I could be wrong.
You are correct, though, the pronunciation is in fact
"spats-HO-mo". For some reason I have this recollection that
Esperanto uses Z as in naZi.
Hey, c'mon, it's been over forty years. I'm an old man. Leave me
alone. :)
|6.10.07 @ 10:43PM|#
"Eric Dondero | June 10, 2007, 12:17am | #
Hey guys, all you need to know is Bush was right!"
Clearly, this is somebody who needs to be taken seriously.
Somebody whose opinion about elections is ignored at your
peril.
|6.10.07 @ 10:47PM|#
Isaac- I wasn't trying to give you a hard time; only to pre-empt
the spaz-homo jokers (though I see that I was too late in Laursen's
case ;-).
To refresh your memory and for others' FYI:
"Z" is pronounced as English speakers do in "buzz."
"C" is pronounced as "ts." The English/German word "Nazi" would be
rendered phonetically in Esperanto as "naci." In fact, the phrase
for "national language" -- "nacia lingvo" -- is pronounced
"not-SEE-uh LIN-g'voh." Learning to pronounce ALL of the vowels and
consonants consistently was hard for me, especially the hard g at
the end of what my eye sees as "ING" and the hard K in such a word
as "knabo" (boy). You have to pronounce the latter as k'NAW-boh,
such that the k sounds almost like the click from an African
language. If you sneak a vowel in there -- kuh-NAW-boh -- you have
just said "hemp" (kanabo), which is of course what wags will accuse
you of smoking if you believe in either the utility and value of
Esperanto, or the viability of the Ron Paul campaign.
But let them wag. I'm getting to be an old guy too, Isaac, and if
I've learned anything, it's this: Doing what we personally think is
right is never a mistake, regardless of the taunts received.
Iru, Ron, Iru!
|6.10.07 @ 11:17PM|#
jh -You said..
"-- a more libertarian approach would be to finance most if not
everything government does by voluntary donations, not mandated
taxation. For example, if you wanted to use the roads, you'd pay
user fees or gasoline taxes directly targeted to the actual
users."
You might be interested to learn that Washington State has no
income tax, no capital gains tax, no inventory tax, and the tax
rate on manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing are kept under
1/2 of 1% (literally the bare minimum to make sure people aren't
"dumping stuff in the river")
http://www.choosewashington.com/state_data/Taxes.asp
We have no sales tax on unprepared food, and sales taxes on
machinery used in manufacturing, advanced computing, energy
production, and biotech are all waived.
http://choosewashington.com/state_data/Incentives.asp
We also really, really, really pissed off the banking system (read
bleeding out their asses) by opening up credit union membership to
all residents. http://www.becu.org/default.asp?pid=joinbecu
In addition, I happen to know for a fact that there is no "Labor
and Industries" (aka workman's comp tax) on contractors. (We
actually have a real difference in how we treat people who hire
Peons Vs. how we treat people who work with Partners.)
We have the most profitable software company.. In the history on
mankind.
We have the most profitable aerospace company.. In the history on
mankind.
We have for profit energy production...
http://www.pse.com/
..and ended up in the top 10 for lowest Co2 per capita because of
it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/02/state/n094611D25.DTL
Oh, and this is was our official response to the "World Trade
Organization" stopping by for a chat. (They don't like us much...)
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/national_emergency_img/400bullets.jpg
That said, we had the highest cigarette tax in the country as of
2002, all liquor is taxed by the state, as is gambling. Funny thing
about that is that you only have to pay those if you are too lazy
to drive down the road to your nearest reservation.
Vehicle registration is taxed, as are emissions for internal
combustion engines, and we have parking fees for people to lazy to
walk to the park, ect.
Our biggest "tax" problem is far and away our property tax, but it
(unfortunately) garners wide public support as it keeps property
values high by making stagnation physically impossible. That said,
we still managed to lower property taxes by 1.25 percent between
1999 and 2003.
There are many here who would like to end the "War on Drugs" so we
can tax those too and lower the property tax further (possibly
eliminate).
Would you say this is more sane than what most state governments
are doing right now?
p.s. I agree with "sunshine" laws, but it'll be a bitch to
enforce.
Regards, Chris
|6.10.07 @ 11:33PM|#
Merritt, old chap, I confess that many years ago I believed in
the point of Esperanto. But then I also once briefly believed in
World Federalism, which is quite different from One World
Government, but in ways that are much too subtle to discuss
here.
However I have since come to realize that if you speak
English you can speak to a large part of the world's
population and that if you speak English and French or
English and Spanish you can speak to close to half of the
inhabitants of planet Earth. That might sound chauvinistic but its
a lot more than you'll find who can speak Esperanto,
Sorry, but frankly Esperanto seems like so much pointless bullshit
to me. But I am fascinated by the fact that you have taken the time
to learn. For me it is something in the distant past (as evidenced
by my poor recollection of it). :)
|6.10.07 @ 11:41PM|#
The Soviet Union put heavier and heavier restrictions on the
use of Esperanto by private citizens from 1930 on, culminating in
1938 when all registered speakers of Esperanto in the U.S.S.R. were
rounded up and either deported to Siberia or shot. Esperanto was
effectively banned in the Soviet Union until 1956, discouraged
until 1979, and kept under strict governmental control until the
late 1980s.
That's from an Esperanto website.
Interesting to me.
When I was taking Esperanto at my high school we were encouraged to
sign up for penpals in the Soviet Union. Problem was after the
first contact none of the wanted to communicate in Esperanto. What
they wanted to do was learn English. :)
|6.11.07 @ 12:03AM|#
Isaac Bertram said, "However I have since come to realize that
if you speak English you can speak to a large part of the world's
population and that if you speak English and French or English and
Spanish you can speak to close to half of the inhabitants of planet
Earth. That might sound chauvinistic but its a lot more than you'll
find who can speak Esperanto..."
Still, there appear to be several million around the planet who can
have a conversation in Esperanto, or at least catch your meaning if
you use it with them. You are certainly right to say "if you can
speak English AND xyx..." The problem is that you really need to
understand xyz fluently, or the person you're interacting with
needs to understand your language fluently, to avoid frustration
and misunderstanding.
National languages are hard to learn, as I have seen for myself. So
you put ten or twenty years into French or Spanish, and the native
speakers still patronize you (sort of like trying to mount a
libertarian takeover of the GOP or Democrats from the inside).
People elsewhere put ten or twenty years into English, and we still
make fun of their accents and malapropisms, while we talk to them
slowly, in too-loud voices. Put ten or twenty years into Esperanto,
and you're a world-renowned expert in it (sort of like getting
involved with your local LP and not too many years later running
for Congress, Senate, or the White House). I don't say this
mockingly. In each context, the pond is small, but your
opportunities to flourish and make a difference in it are much
greater than in the "big ponds" of the national languages or major
political parties. Continued demonstrated usefulness of Esperanto
draws more people into that movement all the time -- the Chinese
have produced tens of thousands of speakers, I am told, from a
fairly recent push to expand use of the language. They broadcast
news and cultural information in Esperanto on a regular basis. So
the pond is getting bigger. Continued demonstrations of electoral
victory and success in office by libertarians (both of the small-l
and large L type) have enlarged that pond since I first became
aware of the LP, and promise to enlarge it even further in the
years ahead.
I took the time to learn it because I like languages, and was
curious about what needed to be in an "artificial" language to make
it truly useful for people. I kept at it as I became aware that it
isn't just pointless BS. Real people have used this language for
real purposes for a long time, and they have created quite a body
of literature and resources. There does seem to be a "heart" to
Esperanto, just as there is a "heart" to libertarianism, naysayers
to the contrary. Whether that will lead to big things in either
case, is yet to be seen.
Andrew|6.11.07 @ 12:14AM|#
RE: skeptic
I've spoke to Paul enough times to know he calls himself a libertarian often. He is often identified as such in the media... That he ran as a big L Libertarian Party candidate in the past doesn't help either. He says he is a libertarian. I've heard him say it.
Maybe I should have been more clear. Since the people who would be
confused as to what a libertarian is have heard of him (after the
first debate), he has not called himself a libertarian. In fact,
the few times I've seen it come up, he has always corrected the
interviewer and, in at least one case, cited immigration as an
example of a difference. Obviously he was referred to as a
Libertarian when he ran as a member of the LP (that's how I first
heard of him) but any perceived damage by that falls on the
shoulders of the LP. They're constantly skewing the meaning of
libertarian. An example; after Neal Boortz was allowed to speak at
the convention here in Atlanta, many people came to believe that
all libertarians were completely behind the invasion of Iraq. The
differences between big "L" and little "l" are meaningless to the
people who could be confused. To them, they're one in the same. So,
even if Ron Paul is damaging the word "libertarian" which you hold
so dear (I'm still not convinced he is), you have a lot more to
worry about from people like Boortz, Dondero and Maher who will
openly proclaim they are libertarians to anyone that will
listen.
I find it bizarre to have you defend anarchism and then say Pauls positions is consistent with the Constitution (of "no authority" as Spooner put it). But then I'm not interested in whether he's a Constitutionalist but whether he is a libertarian.
I could see how you could feel that way if you had only read that
one paragraph but if you had read the last paragraph I addressed to
you, when I said...
Like I said earlier, ideally, I'd like to see a completely
stateless society but I still feel a Constitutional federal
government would be exponentionally better than our current
situtation. At the very least, it would give states the ability to
start minimizing government without federal interference. IMO, it's
the only chance (however small) that we'll have to start a serious
trend towards liberty in any meaningful way w/o waiting for it to
completely hit the fan.
...that should have been enough for you to understand why I would
defend market-anarchism while only caring that "Pauls positions
is consistent with the Constitution".
As for him attacks on immigration see his close affiliation with the racist Minutement and his speaking at their conference. They are a one-issue group, anti-immigration to the core (especially brown immigrants) and they are in love with Ron Paul.
I'll do some searching for the things you mention (I wish you could
provide a link) but I find it hard to believe Ron is saying
anything racist. I've been following his career for over a decade,
his voting, his speaches and statements and have heard him speak in
person a couple times and never have I read anything by him or
heard him say anything that I would consider unreasonable, crazy or
racist. If you're implying that your opinion of Paul changes
because there may be questionable people who support him, that's
stupid. What, is he going to grant racist favors from the Oval
Office?!?!
It's fine if you don't agree with Paul or support him to be the
President but don't be mad at him. The word libertarian lost it's
meaning a long time ago.
|6.11.07 @ 12:25AM|#
When it comes to awesome universal languages that ought to be revived for ease of communication, I see your Esperanto and raise you a Latin.
|6.11.07 @ 3:07AM|#
Heh, it's funny how one word can cause the thread to go off on a
tangent. I learned Esperanto as a kid too, but my problem with it
is that despite its pretentions of being a universal language, its
structure is heavily based on Central European and Slavic languages
(understandable, since its inventor was Polish). And while it is
far easier to learn than any natural language, it has many oddities
of its own. For instance, you're supposed to be able to convert a
verb (ending in i) to a noun by replacing the i with an o. Problem
is, what relation does the resulting noun have to the original
verb? For instance, ami means "to love", and amo means "love". But
then mangxi means "to eat" and mangxo means "food". Why doesn't
mangxo mean "eating", or amo mean "lovable thing"? It seems so
arbitrary.
Anyway, if you want a really logical artificial language, look at
Lojban. They tried to divorce that language from every known
language and from human habits of thought completely. The result is
an airtight logical structure, but it's really tough to learn
because the patterns of thought you have to get used to in order to
express yourself well are so strange.
|6.11.07 @ 5:04AM|#
Chris -- I used to live in Washington state. My wife was born
and raised there. It's a lovely place, though quite a bit too cold
for me, which is why I moved to Hawaii.
Washington is a rather highly taxed state according to
taxfoundation.org, or by googling "tax burden by state". The tax
foundation website lists it at #16 for combined state and local tax
burden, mostly due to the 6.5% sales tax. I live in the state
that's #3 on the list, a real tax hell, so obviously tax burden
isn't the only criteria for where a libertarian would live. Other
things matter, such as climate, culture, people, employment
etc.
So, yeah, I agree with you that Washington is a desirable place to
live, and obviously so do the droves of people moving there. I
think it is somewhat poorly governed, in particular by my
mother-in-law, who is a state senator there, but the politicians
have enough common sense to more or less leave Boeing and Microsoft
alone, so that covers up for a multitude of other sins. In any
case, the strength of a representative republic is that you can
have complete idiots in power and things can still progress despite
them. I mean, if we can survive the Harding and FDR
administrations, then we can survive virtually anyone. My point in
the previous posts is that if we can have a good life despite a
screwed-up statist system, imagine how great things would be if we
got the government to pretty much leave us alone. I suspect you
don't really agree with that, but if you hang around on this
website long enough perhaps you'll come around to my POV a bit
more. Anyhow, I've enjoyed talking to you -- you're obviously a
perceptive and good-hearted person -- and I hope you can pop in and
weight in on these threads from time to time. Anyhow, enjoy your
lovely state!
|6.11.07 @ 7:38AM|#
Andrew:
I still disagree. I've seen clips of Ron Paul being inteviewed
recently where he used the term libertarian to describe himself
contrary to what you claim. I suspect you are right and so am I. He
is a poltiician and can say two different things at two different
times. But he has used the term to describe himself. And I see over
500 artilces on google news which refer to him as a
libertarian.
By the way I do worry about people like Boortz and Maher. Dondero
is a nobody who mainly trolls libertarian websites stirring up crap
so I don't worry about him.
You find it hard to believe Ron Paul would say anything racist.
Remember his Ron Paul newsletter published a rather racist piece
which was discussed here. It was put out under Paul's name but he
says he didn't write it. The actually author seems to be Lew
Rockwell who has strong racist tendencies from what I can see. But
Paul published it under his own name though he later claimed he
didn't support it after it became an issue. Apparently he wants us
to believe he didn't read his own newsletter published in his
name.
I still note that there is no confirmation from the Paul people
about the story that set off this discussion (which had nothing to
do with Esperanto). I remain a skeptic as to the truth about the
claim. And with each passing day my skepticism seems confirmed.
M|6.11.07 @ 9:31AM|#
you put ten or twenty years into French or Spanish, and the
native speakers still patronize you (sort of like trying to mount a
libertarian takeover of the GOP or Democrats from the
inside)
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
(Shakespeare, History of Henry IV, Part I, Act III, Scene
1)
M|6.11.07 @ 9:46AM|#
skeptic - you wrote that "Lew Rockwell ... has strong racist
tendencies from what I can see."
I would be grateful for you to indicate evidence supporting that
claim, with apologies if I've overlooked some obvious source
myself.
|6.11.07 @ 9:46AM|#
I sent money to the campaign, too--the first time I've ever
donated to a candidate.
Paul may have little chance of winning, but it isn't no chance.
There's plenty of time for more voter disenchantment, and who knows
what will happen between now and the primaries? At least Paul is
getting some attention and is running within a major party, which
should give him some additional hope. I think his message is
appealing to a larger segment of America than, say, Kucinich's.
Duane|6.11.07 @ 10:35AM|#
I donated for my first time too, and plan to make a habit of it
in the coming months.
FYI: Eric Dondero used to be Ron Paul's driver, even though he
calls himself a "former senior aide". Heh.
|6.11.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Ron Paul will be getting my primary vote and I will work my ass
off to get him elected.
Don't underestimate strength in numbers. We are a large group.
Check out the grassroots on meetup.com
No one has more passionate supporters.
Eric Dondero, you are a fool. Study up on foreign policy cause and
effect aka blowback.
conrad|6.11.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Ron Paul is the only one using his brain. Period. That makes a huge difference.
|6.11.07 @ 12:34PM|#
I thought libertarianism stood for economic _as well_ as social
liberalism?
How come, then, that anyone calling for limited state involvement
in specific sectors (the health care system and security forces) is
castigated by the same libertarians who commend the openly
anti-abortionist Ron Paul as being representative of the
ideology?
I don't write this to troll the thread ; but I honestly feel like
there is a double-standard in this regard.
G. Perry|6.11.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Eric Dondero is a disenchanted former staffer of Dr. Paul.
Nothing he says has credibility.
The reason why Dr. Paul is ranking in at 0% on the various
"official" polls is because Dr. Paul is not includes as a poll
response.
Any poll that has Dr. Paul included has him scoring several points
above Romney, and miles ahead of Rudy.
|6.11.07 @ 1:40PM|#
I've contributed $200 so far and intend to keep contributing.
The media can keep ignoring him and saying that he doesn't have a
chance but they don't control Ron's supporters and their
donations.
Once the republicans figure out that a pro-war candidate can't win
the Presidency then Paul will emerge as the obvious candidate.
|6.11.07 @ 2:25PM|#
A few comments on various points:
Universal languages: My interest in Esperanto was in trying to see
what kept it alive for over 100 years and in the minds, hearts, and
mouths of millions throughout that time -- something that other
proposed universal languages failed to do. I wondered how much was
social phenomenon, and how much may have been due to the design.
Latin is just too hard to learn, and it is worthwhile to note that
Esperanto's inventor originally conceived a "simplified Latin" --
you can see many similarities in the grammar and vocabulary of the
two languages. If Lobjan is so difficult for a human being to wrap
his or her mind around, why would anyone consider it as a practical
tool for communication between people? Also, even though Esperanto
is Euro-centric, that hasn't stopped thousands of Chinese, Koreans,
and Japanese from learning it and using it in significant ways.
From what I can see, the Esperanto movement's biggest momentum is
now in Asia. Go figure.
Ron Paul a Libertarian? The thing about Paul is that, when he
disagrees with Libertarian orthodoxy, I've found him to have a
principled and well-articulated reason for it, which harkens back
to libertarian principle. In my book, that makes him more than
libertarian enough to have been a credible LP Presidential
candidate with no apologies necessary. On abortion, for instance,
Paul believes that the government exists to, among other things,
defend right to life. All Libertarians agree with this, but they
don't always agree on who is a person that should receive the
government's protection, and against whom in which circumstances.
Paul draws the line prior to birth, and this is completely
consistent with his actual experience as an obstetrician, well
apart from any religious beliefs he holds. On the other hand, he
surely appreciates the pragmatic difficulties for legislation and
enforcement that recognition of pre-natal people as legal entities
separate from their mothers could cause. He uses his pragmatism in
addressing the immigration issue, as well. In general, he favors
free trade and -- if you take the entirety of things he has said on
the subject -- essentially free passage of people back and forth
over borders. On the other hand, he points out that as long as we
are going to bestow citizens and legal residents with entitlements,
we need to cap our largesse (that is, the takings from some to give
to others) by capping the influx of people. He wants to downsize or
eliminate the entitlements, as well. If successful in that latter
endeavor, it would be interesting to see what President Paul would
say about immigration then. My guess -- and this is just my opinion
after having read and heard many of his columns and speeches -- is
that he would want to streamline the process for letting people
through as tourists, students, and even long-term workers, but he
might tighten up on actual citizenship applications.
I've heard Paul call himself a Libertarian, too, and not just
during his earlier Presidential run.
|6.11.07 @ 7:51PM|#
# Cicero | June 11, 2007, 3:35pm | #
"Latin is just too hard to learn"
# O tempora, o mores!
I said that from actually having given it a shot, trying to help my
son with it when he was studying it in high school. I think the
point of an auxilliary language should be the ease and speed with
which it can be employed to say the things you need to say. In that
regard, Latin seems like chess. Esperanto seems like checkers, or
even Othello. You get up to speed with the basic game rather
quickly, but becoming really GOOD takes time and experience, as
does attaining fluency in any language. In my opinion, Esperanto's
achievement is to simplify and accelerate one's attainment of basic
functionality.
BTW, here is my favorite bit of latin, which would serve well as a
motto for any libertarian activists, especially the Ron Paul
crew:
Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
|6.12.07 @ 12:54AM|#
skeptic, have you seend this?
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245