Who is the best current choice to promote libertarianism?
Submitted by M.J. Taylor on Sun, 2024-06-17 17:35.
A large brew-ha-ha has sparked over at KN@PPSTER over the possibility that Ron Paul is a racist. While I disagree with Tom on the dissection of the document he cites, and thereby its meaning, I've been somewhat shocked that Tom also disagrees with the statement, mine and others, that Ron Paul is the “best current choice to promote libertarianism.”
No one is without warts. And everybody has decisions in their past that they would not make the same if they had the chance to remake them. So, while I'd like to stick with my original thought that Ron Paul is the best choice, probably for ego reasons, I'd rather hear all the pros and cons of the current crop of enablers for the libertarian cause, and thereby come to a rational decision as to who/what to give my finite resources to.
Who has a strong libertarian message: pro-individual, anti-corruption, limited government, free markets, non-aggression principal, ... ? And what is their resource base (money, name recognition, large existing support group), so they can actually archive something? Because at the end of the day, if you can't get your message heard, has it done the rest of us any good?
So who then, is truly the best current choice(s) to promote libertarianism?
Please add your thoughts, facts, new entities in the comments and I'll consolidate them into a cohesive list below.
Best Regards,
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
ReasonToFreedom.com
PS: While this started off as purely a look at current candidates, I'm willing to expand it to include anyone currently expending significant resources to pursue moving the United States of America back to its libertarian roots.
# # #
Ron Paul, Republican
Positive Issues:
Against Victim Disarmament
Against Imperial Expansion
Against Socialized Health Care
Against Statism
For true Capitalism
Negative Issues:
Racist?
Immigration
Anti-Homosexual [?=Jim Davidson]
Seeking nomination of an anti-libertarian party
Against reproductive freedom [Jim Davidson]
Reach:
Money (Net Receipts: $26+ million on 12/17/2007, $8,268,451 on 09/30/2007, $3,009,996 on 06/30/2007)
Name recognition
Large existing support group
Hugh new support group
A Blimp
Steve Kubby, Libertarian Party
Positive Issues:
Against Drug War
Pro immigration freedom
Equal rights for non-heterosexuals
Socially tolerant
Negative Issues:
Reach:
Money ($6,215 on 06/30/2007, $6,633 on 09/30/2007)
Name recognition slim, but greatest of the other LP nomination candidates
George David Joseph Phillies, Libertarian Party
Positive Issues:
UnBan internet gambling
Torture is a crime against civilization
Peace with Iraq
Repeal No Child Left Behind
Repeal the Military Commission Act
Negative Issues:
Tax Credits for Education
Political Party Loyalty
Reach:
Money ($18,082 on 06/30/2007, $41,577 on 09/30/2007)
Could use some better SEO management of website
Daniel J. Imperato, Independent
Positive Issues:
Turn Social Security over to the people
Iraq cease fire
Become more self-sufficient and energy conscious
Negative Issues:
Save Social Security
Increase Government involvement in Healthcare
Increase Government involvement in Education
Expand Labor Unions in foreign countries
Spread throughout North and South America ethanol, biodiesel, wind, and solar, electric powered processes
Reach:
Money ($250,150 on Mar 31 [per FEC $300,150 on 12/31/2007, typo?], 11/8: $33,150 on 12/31/2007, huh?)
Wayne Allyn Root, no FEC declaration as of 10/4/07. [Is he really running? -MJ]
Positive Issues:
Fiscal Conservative
Limited Government
States' Rights
Pledges to not raise tax rates
Drastically reduce and simplify federal taxes
Elimination of death taxes
Reduce government entitlement programs
Reduce corporate welfare
Social Security reform and choice
Lawyer Abuse Reform
End Affirmative action
Free Market economy
Workplace Freedom
Freedom and Parental Choice in the Educational System
Total elimination of the Department of Education on the federal level
Free Market health care system
Overturn McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform
Mandatory term limits for all elected officials (only address symptom)
Voting ballots in English-only
Total Transparency and Accountability in government
Drastically reduce foreign aid
End the Nanny State
End prosecution of victimless crimes (Drug war, et. all)
Opposes a National ID card
Negative Issues:
States' Rights over individual rights
Pledges to not raise tax rates
Wants Flat Tax
Social Security reform (not elimination)
Sign more Vetoes than any President in history
Support the Line Item Veto
Lawyer Abuse Reform (but not reform the legal system that causes the abuse?)
Utilize vouchers, tax cuts, and tax breaks to encourage individuals to buy health insurance
Only supports the rights of citizens to bear arms if they qualify to his “standards”
Increase Government involvement in Online Gaming
Reach:
Money (No filing shown as of Nov. 8)
Catchy name
Christine Smith, Libertarian Party
Positive Issues:
Immediate withdrawal from Iraq
Government Transparency & Accountability (verifiable paper voting, investigation of invasion of Iraq, Read The Bills Act, )
Eliminate the federal special interest lobbying & federal intrusion into environmental matters
Repeal the income tax
Educational choice and freedom
Veto all unconstitutional bills presented by Congress
Repeal previous executive orders which granted unconstitutional power
Opposes Real ID/national ID card
Opposes the discriminatory Don't Ask Don't Tell policy
Uphold the U.S. Constitution which does not authorize the federal government to be involved in the issue of abortion (Abortion decided by each state)
Repeal the federal income tax and abolish the IRS
End government overspending
Abolish the Federal Reserve
Opposes gun control laws
End all government incentives/subsidies to illegal immigrants
Permit illegal immigrants to work
States will have their sovereign right to ... practice democratic control and legislation over immigration matters in their states
For marriage equality
Believes in full equality and opposes all laws that discriminate
Must not use the force of the federal government to try and protect people from themselves (End the 'War on Drugs'
End U.S. government meddling in the affairs and conflicts of foreign nations
Close all U.S. bases in all areas worldwide which pose no direct threat to America
Negative Issues:
Reach:
Money ($7,506 on 06/30/2007, $9,391 on 09/30/2007
Dennis Kucinich
http://www.dennis4president.com/
Reach:
Money ($1,110,318 on 06/30/2007, $2,122,014 on 09/30/2007)
# # #
Issues List (suggestions, feel free to add anything not listed):
Ethics (cheating, fraud, theft, ...)
Privacy
Victim Disarmament
Imperial Expansion (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, ...)
Health Care
Statism
true Capitalism
Racism
Immigration
Marriage Choice (or general tolerance)
Medical Choice (abortion, euthanasia, ...)
Individual Rights
Reach List (existing and future ability):
Money
Name recognition
Support group(s)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- Delicious
- Magnoliacom
Link Space Donated to Rational Review
KN@PPSTER | ISIL | Ron Paul for President | The Four Reasons: Impeach Bush
"Best current choice to promote libertarianism"
MJ,
Rather than answer your question, I'm just going to say that I don't think Ron Paul is even in the running as the answer ... not because of the racism thing (although that's certainly of concern), but becaue he isn't promoting libertarianism.
Ron Paul is running as a conservative. That's what he calls himself, and that's how he portrays his positions. Even when he takes a thoroughgoingly libertarian position (as on foreign policy), he gives it a different label (in the case of foreign policy, he refers to it as a Taftian conservative Republican policy).
And outside of foreign policy, he leans toward promoting one of the big issues on which he is conservative rather than libertarian (immigration). He wasn't even willing to budge toward libertarianism on "don't ask, don't tell." He's playing a pretty much fully conservative hand here.
Even if there's Coca-Cola inside the bottle, if the bottle bears a Pepsi label, it is Pepsi which is being promoted.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Pepsi or Coke...
So long as your thirst is quenched, the label is inconsequential.
Cola, cola everywhere and not a drop to drink
Gene,
Ron Paul doesn't quench my thirst for liberty.
Yes, there's the argument that Paul is "only wrong on one or two issues, and someone who agrees with you on 90% is a friend."
But there's also the argument that it MATTERS what you put up front in your campaign rhetoric, and Paul is emphasizing his "conservative" credentials mostly to the exclusion of his "libertarian" credentials. That doesn't promote libertarianism, and to the extent that it gets associated with libertarianism, it promotes the misconception that libertarianism is just a store brand of conservatism.
I suppose that might be a way to score some cheap short-term political gains (although I doubt it), but it isn't a way to get Americans to adopt libertarian ideas or to demand that those ideas be translated into public policy. It's a dead-end trail that leads "libertarian-curious" voters into the GOP corral, where they can be broken and saddled for a ride in the wrong direction.
If I pointed to a Democratic candidate who opposes the war on Iraq but supports socialized health care and victim disarmament, you'd laugh in my face if I said that candidate was "the best current choice to promote libertarianism." I don't see that it's any different when Ron Paul opposes the war on Iraq while supporting Know-Nothingism on immigration and "don't ask don't tell" in the US military.
Kubby's info
Hi Tom,
Can I get you to fill out the above for Kubby and whoever else you believe is the best choice? Also, please tell me if I missed anything else in the “Con” list for Ron Paul.
Thanks,
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
from Reason to Freedom
Kubby's pros and cons
MJ,
Since this is not the first time you've asked, I'll comply ... but first I'm going to issue a disclaimer:
I am no longer the manager of Steve Kubby's presidential campaign and the things I say cannot be reasonably construed as statements FROM that campaign or the candidate. I did not discuss my recent writings on Ron Paul with Kubby before publishing them, nor have I discussed them with him since.
I still support Kubby and am still working for him, but everything I do is not related to his campaign any more than everything a grocery sacker does when he's out at the bar on Saturday night is related to the store he works at from 8-5 on Monday thru Friday. I have good reason to believe, based on his recent public statements, that Steve has a much more positive view of Ron Paul than I do at this time.
So, disclaimer done.
The big negative on Ron Paul that I see missing from your list is that he's seeking the nomination of an anti-libertarian party, the GOP. To the extent that he is successful, that's going to cause the public to associate libertarianism with the Republican Party ... an association which is undeserved and which damages libertarianism, since the GOP has always been a party of big government and since it is never going to be anything else.
Some LP members are deserting the LP and its candidates, at least for this election cycle, for Ron Paul, for various articulated reasons. That damages the LP in the short term due to the re-direction of funding, sweat, etc. It damages both the LP and the movement in the long term to the extent that it has a residual effect of causing people to join, or remain in, the GOP thinking that they're going to turn it into a libertarian party, or use it to move public policy in a libertarian direction. That's never going to happen. Every minute and every dollar wasted on trying to MAKE it happen is a minute and a dollar debited from the "promoting libertarianism" side of the ledger and credited to the "damaging libertarianism" side of the ledger."
Now, Kubby ... I'll hit his negatives first
1. His big negative is that he's been dismally unsuccessful in the fundraising that's necessary to power a credible campaign. So far -- according to FEC reports filed for the period through the end of March -- the other candidate's for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination are badly underfunded as well. Phillies has done a little bit better than Kubby, but only by pumping his own money into his campaign. Imperato's figures are so bizarre, and so strangely characterized, that it's impossible to tell what's really going on there (he allegedly loans money to his campaign, then allegedly pays himself back, etc.) ... and he's not exactly what most libertarians consider very libertarian anyway. When the second quarter reports come out, I guess we'll see how Root is doing.
2. Kubby doesn't have as much name recognition as Paul, although he probably has much greater name recognition than any of the other LP nomination candidates.
Positives:
1. The constituency of voters opposed to the war on drugs is growing. That's a constituency that should have been under the libertarian umbrella already, but we've never done very well at mobilizing it. Kubby is a credible candidate with that constituency and is probably our best shot ever at making a libertarian voter bloc out of it.
2. Kubby is reaching out to other unrepresented and/or poorly represented constituencies on the LEFT, not just the right -- for example, the constituency for immigration freedom and the constituency for equal rights for non-heterosexuals. The LP and the libertarian movement have been flying lopsidedly on our right wing for at least a couple of decades right now ... as a matter of fact, since the LAST time Ron Paul ran for President. It's time to put some lift under our LEFT wing.
3. I'll just quote Kubby himself from last week's debate on a reason to support an LP candidate, namely himself: "2008 is the year when the Libertarian Party can step out of the major parties' shadows and position itself as a bold alternative. It's our chance to shake off labels like 'GOP Lite' and 'Low-Tax Liberal' and stand our ideas on their own feet in real contention for the support of the American people. What I have to offer the Libertarian Party is myself as a candidate with real, bankable political experience in winning freedom for my fellow Americans, and a campaign that doesn't keep the us in that major party shadow for yet another four years."
As a side note, for those who think I'm attacking Paul because I support Kubby ... read those three points again. In realpolitik terms, if I wanted to support Kubby by talking about Paul, I'd be holding the door open for those LP members who are most likely to support Paul and telling them it's a great idea. They're the members who are LESS likely to support Kubby's approach and therefore less likely to support him for the LP's nomination. As they leave, the remaining LP rank and file becomes proportionally more and more "left-leaning." The better Paul does over in the GOP, the more likely Kubby is to be the LP nominee.
Help the most people you can.
Hey Tom,
No, I don't think you are “attacking” Paul to promote anyone else. And I can see how you came to the conclusions you did on Paul and racism, not that I agree with you as I felt the facts presented were generally correct and the conclusion made, while unpleasant, was a fair explanation of said facts. Not that I don't feel the piece was flawed, definitely could have presented the conclusion less bombastically, and truly to earn a full “libertarian” label needed to outline steps to solve the problems identified.
I also agree that the Republican party is a pile of hypocritical lying crap. But, that's the party and not necessarily any specific individual within it. (Except for Bush, Rove, Cheney, and other associated NeoCon scum)
As to the thought that 'this is the time' that we can step out of the shadows, well, that's just bunk. We've been deluding ourselves with that logic for the last 20 years. We've always needed to expose the truth about the Demopublican party and present ourselves as “a bold alternative that WILL make American life better!”
It's not new, we just need the resources to accomplish the marketing to get it done.
Paul's got warts, who doesn't, but unless he commits an unethical act, I'll probably continue to support him. Cutting the size of government (IRS, pork, ... ) and its current abuse of powers (illegal wars, drug war, big brotherism, ... ), seems more important, and the social issues Ron doesn't address can be addressed next.
Help the most people you can each cycle and eventually you will have helped them all.
MJ
Ron Paul is Running for America
I am really fried by some of the talk here.
Ron Paul is running as a Republican, because he is
smart.
He KNOWS that another party will not win.
You know what he stands for.
His entire message is about Liberty and Freedom.
If you care at all about your Freedoms, then I think
you had better rethink your position.
Because in my opinion, if he doesn't get the Nomination,
this country is history.
You might as well sign up for the Police State, because
that is where we are headed.
I saw a Liberatarian site that was backing Guliani.
Are you kidding me???
He's on the Council on Foreign Relations for god sakes!
Do you know their agenda??
Please do some research. Don't through away the only chance
we have.
We need Ron Paul. Help him. Back him up.
He really does have a chance now.
In reality, he is winning hands down with the people.
His support is growing by the day.
There is noone else.
Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rem6GH8ESAY&NR=1
Ron Paul
Hi LibertySilver,
I tend to agree with your statements, except that even Ron Paul himself knows he won't get the Republican nomination. A snowball in the proverbial hell has a better chance as they say. But, it's been written up by better orators than I, so, may I suggest that you take a look at this article?
Why the Libertarians Must Draft Ron Paul [after he loses the GOP nomination], by Kevin Tuma
It does a nice job of explaining why no matter how much grass roots support Paul has, the insiders at GOP will not pick him. And then does a good job of suggesting a 'what next' for him.
Thanks for the comment,
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
from Reason to Freedom
Winning While Losing
Even if he isn't nominated, what do you think is going to happen to all of his converts? How can you go back to progressive liberalism or social conservatism after hearing the message of liberty! There's a rift emerging in the Republican Party and it needs to be taken advantage of. Goldwater managed to!
Winning While Losing
Don't forget the write-in!!
Ron Paul misses on reproductive freedom
Let me be fair to Ron Paul and take exception to two of the items listed against him. I've had lunch with Dough Casey and Ron Paul; I've attended several of Ron's birthday parties with Lew Rockwell and others. So, I believe I know the man. I don't believe he is a racist. I do accept Ron's explanations of the content of his newsletters.
As well, I don't believe he's anti-homosexual. He clearly accepts "don't ask, don't tell" as a policy, but he also clearly stated that heterosexuals should be removed from military service if their sexual conduct is disruptive. For my own part, I have no idea how to organize a fundamentally authoritarian activity like the military to be just or impartial, which is one of the many reasons I favor the militia rather than any sort of standing military.
Not listed among your criticisms of Ron is his position on reproductive freedom. I believe he is against women having the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. While he has stated only support for the states to determine how this matter is to be handled, I do think he is against a property view of a woman's body. In my opinion, a woman should be free to remove a rapist or any other trespasser from her body, when, as, and how she sees fit. I think Ron would be willing to go to considerable lengths to protect what he sees as the rights of the unborn - rights which appear to me to impose obligations on others. Personally, I would rather see technology solve this puzzle by allowing women to have an unwanted pregnancy transplanted, or brought to term in an artificial womb, with ardent foes of abortion putting up the funds in some cases.
You mention immigration, the regulation of which is clearly not authorized anywhere in the constitution. I think a border wall tall enough and strong enough to keep foreigners out is also going to be able to keep Americans in, and I resist the idea of creating another Iron Curtain. While Ron would certainly not abuse the border wall, he would serve not more than 8 years as president. And his successors would be just as likely to abuse it as his predecessors.
Compromise on divisive issues
In searching for the "Best Choice to Promote Libertarianism" we ought to avoid issues that divide libertarians down the middle. At the very least we should seek people who approach such issues from a purely libertarian perspective, and who look for libertarian-friendly compromises. We all know the problematic issues, and we all know that abortion is one of them. A states'-rights approach is a favorite libertarian compromise, and Ron Paul promotes it. In fact, his support for the states'-rights approach on abortion is more important than his actual position.
I believe he is against women having the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Categorically against, or would he limit abortion, e.g. by the usual trimester compromise (1st trimester it's a cluster of cells, last trimester it's an unborn person, and middle trimester...let's try to avoid that)?
when, as, and how she sees fit.
That is the only clue in your post as to your own position, which is extreme among libertarians. Principled libertarians (even atheist ancaps like me) can consider late-term abortions unjust in the same way that we defend the rights of other incapacitated people, and other people who have a stake in jointly held property.
While in a few cases the child may be the result of rape, in the vast majority the woman has made a conscious choice to engage in behavior that will likely result in a child. Whether from rape or not, if after 6 months she has done nothing to rectify the situation, it is too late: she has implicitly given partial, temporary ownership of her body to another person, and taken on some temporary obligations. The best way to solve a problem of "confusion of property" is to prevent it in the first place.
Immigration is another such divisive issue. I recently heard Gardner Goldsmith speak on that topic. It seems that in the old days immigration was a state affair, while naturalization belonged to the federal government. Even though there might be a theoretical solution to this and other difficult questions, I would still set them aside here. 99% purity is good enough if the person is a good communicator.
A libertarian world would replace government care with private charity and kindness. Ron Paul conveys that in his words and manner. Even if he were not a libertarian, he would set a good example that I would follow. He is indeed a rare libertarian leader.
Ron Paul re Reproductive Freedom / Immigration
I happen to think life is important from womb to tomb - so on that, we disagree. However, I really appreciated your idea of having an unwanted pregnancy transplanted (giving someone who REALLY wants a child the chance to have one.) This saves the life, while protecting the birth mother's right NOT to participate. I wonder if you heard the speech in which Dr. Paul told of how he came to his decision in this regard. It might make you feel a bit differently about the subject. I believe he feels - as I do - that abortion is too often used as retroactive birth control.
As far as immigration is concerned, I agree with you (that NO president can have more than eight years in charge, and so a giant wall may pose a future dilemma). However, I agree with Ron Paul that immigration is presently in "run-away mode" (due in large part to the incentives these people receive, e.g. instant citizenship to anyone born on our soil, not to mention food stamps, free medical care or 'amnesty' for the millions already here illegally). Go to his website and read the May 28th Straight Talk.
Healthy Disagreement
Healthy disagreement is what we strive for! So, thank you for your thoughts. This page was started because there are too many strident, “You shall Vote for who I like” pages that hide and distort reality just to sway opinion.
Personally, as far as abortion, I tend to agree with you that it is used as retroactive birth control. I'd like to believe this is because the persons involved are not given easy access to legitimate, or verifiable, information regarding human sexuality. Abstinence may be an option, but if you are censored from knowing everything on a subject, you will not have the knowledge to make the best choice for yourself. (to re-iterate the reason for this libertarian discussion)
You can find the article here: "Statement on Immigration Agreement, by US Rep. Ron Paul"
Thanks for the comment,
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
from Reason to Freedom
Candidate for President= Ron Paul
I'm going to vote for Ron Paul. He may end up not winning the Republican nomination. In the event he doesn't get nominated, I'd be open to voting for Steve Kubby or whomever the Libertarian Party decides to go with. Winning is an important consideration however I'm one person than doesn't like 'lesser of two evils' as my only option. The main difficulty of getting a Libertarian in the White House seems to be the electoral college. Even if the election is won it will be tough to get the electoral college to elect our candidate. The other Republicans aren't anybody I'd want to vote for. Abortion doesn't look like something he is rabid about banning like some Republicans. Maybe this is something he would leave up to the states to decide. That's a GOOD thing the way I see it! It's not easy to find a candidate on either of the two dominate political parties that's worth voting for but Ron Paul is such a candidate.
Ron Paul has indicated he
Ron Paul has indicated he won't run as an Independent. So (if and) when he doesn't get the Repub nomination, I assume that means he'll drop out. And our option will be to vote Libertarian, write Paul in or not vote at all.
God knows, the rest of the Repubs aren't worth voting for. And even more so for the Dems.
So, I'll endorse Paul on the slim fantasy that he'll catch on so well that a groundswell of support will make him known to all (no matter how hard the powers-that-be try to shut him out). And he'll get the nomination. Or just scare the cr*p out of the Republican party so that they realize what they shoulda done as they hand over the White House to the Dems in '08.
And then I'll vote Libertarian, like always.
We need to join forces.
http://unity08.com/
Unity 08 is next best then.
Thanks, but...
Hmmmmm . . . .
I go, I see, 'cause I'm always interested in a new point of view... But, not that I want you to censure this person, this is what I find on your homepage:
Also, as a tip, post why you believe whatever you're posting is a good thing.
Just a thought,
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
from Reason to Freedom
Ron Paul and electability
Ron Paul most definitely can win the Presidency for good reasons.
1. His superb voting record. Unique and admired even by those who oppose his basic positions. There are many who would vote for Hilary Clinton if not for Ron Paul. I have met more than a few.
2. Ron Pauls strength was obvious in Ames, Iowa. His volunteers equaled those of ALL the other candidates combined. That was the mainstream republican 1st show of strength, and Ron Pauls supporters swamped them. Only the local media reported it, but folks in Washington have noticed. I have noticed a marked change in the tone of the right wing talk radio.
3. Hilary appears to be the eventual DEM nominee due to her feminist backers and Bills old cadre. But because she is just as lax and corrupt as the rest of them (doesn't bother to read the bills she signs)Ron Paul can show her up on the war, picking up most anti war independants.
4. We libertarian minded folks are in a special place today
We KNOW who Ron Paul is. We don't have to be convinced, and then mull it over for a while. We know he would be good for liberty NOW. We must take his message past the main stream media right to the independant voters who need to know that Ron Paul is the man who will end preemptive war. NOT JUST THIS WAR, most likely war in your lifetime. We must take this message to them now, so they will have time to think about it before the primary.
We have in fact already been doing this, and the republicans are starting to fall in line with Virginia senator John Warner leading the pack.
IF we can get the diebold clone voting machines removed, the people will have thier way. We won't have to take that job on alone, as all supporters want their candidate to win fairly, or are at least more concerned with the other guys cheating.
Ron Paul can win for Libertarians
To clarify, John Warner is leading the pack on Iraq troop withdrawal. That is where Ron Paul has taken it to the republicans.
I have also heard conservative radio talk about the federal Reserve in less than glowing terms. Ron Paul has already changed the debate in 2008.
The only way a third party bid could even be conceivable, is if the revolution comes VERY close to succeeding. Otherwise we are back to the wasted vote/lesser of two evils thing with the democrats. That would be up to Ron Paul, and he has already said he is not interested.
Ideas are the lifeblood of the party. Until Ron Paul made his bid, Libertarian ideas were not getting any traction. By focusing on the failed aggressive foreign policy tactics of the neocons, Ron Paul found hearty agreement from a wide swath of Americans. Most of these people simply weren't listening before. They don't like politics, but find they like preemptive war even less. For the short time these people are paying attention, Ron Paul can be the clear alternative.
The libertarian republican pointing to the Fed drowning America in a sea of fiat paper money. The sheer incompetance of nearly all those around him, as he alone works for a smaller government.
best libertarian choice Jesse Ventura
If you want to advance the both libertarian view and increase the voting block; the best choice would be to draft Jesse Ventura. His possitives out weigh his negatives. He isn't afraid to take on the establishment. He fought against the entrenched democrats, republicans and the press corps(or should I say press corpse)and won. The only negative I see is his former association with Ross Perot. But on that I emphasize "former association".
I tend to agree
I tend to agree, if you (we?) could just get Jesse to run...
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
from Reason to Freedom
BEST CHOICE
RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!! ENOUGH SAID.
BEST CHOICE FOR V.P.
JESSE V, FOR V.P.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A PAUL/VENTURA TICKET WILL BE A WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The best person to promote libertarianism is...
a ridiculous and worthwhile discussion. What?!! It can't be both!
First, clearly Ron Paul is currently the best. He is commanding more attention than any LP candidate in history. And he is not controlled nor beholden to the LP. Sweet.
He is clear on his ideas. And they are libertarian. Has a 19+ year voting record on them. Handles himself well in debate or questions. Comes across in the media well....on and on and on....He is a threat to the GOP and the corporate media, and corporate control of this nation. Hence the "racist" change, "too old," etc. They wouldn't be spouting garbage if he didn't concern them. That is a good thing. If this is the best they have, then they don't have crap...and he has been in the national limelight since 1976. If there was something in his past it has already been exposed.
And he will be finished for all intents and purposes at the end of March. His chances of winning the nomination are slim, not impossible, but slim. For him to have ANY voice at all after the final state primary, he will have to win at least one delegate. That would entitle him to attend the GOP convention, and have floor time. The prospects of him getting even a single delegate are not good. They are not bad, but not good. It could happen, but most likely won't. So he is gone from the limelight.
Why does Ron Paul scare so many mouthy Libertarians (note the large L)? Because he takes away from their control, their money pot and their attention (exposure). Well tough titty! Having seen decades of LP activity, I can truthfully say nobody has ever given much of a damned about an LP candidate's opinion until the general election is underway. And then it is only begrudgingly granted that a sliver of attention is devoted to the LP candidate.
Ron Paul has shown you how to be noticed, how not to just be nice and step aside, how to get your message out and get supporters to rally around your cause in a way that NO LP candidate has ever done. So don't fight him. Emulate him you dunderheads!!!!
End of March, Paul is effectively gone, and who will fill his vacuum? He has a network of pissed off r3VOLutionaries who tried the election route -- that didn't work -- what now? Be there to supply the answer.
Which leads to the next question: Which candidates will be worth a shit for the LP? There are damned few I can think of. Most are wimps who wouldn't dream of supporting, much less defending the illegitimately discarded LP platform. Who instead want a kinder gentler Republican-lite LP..a real political party just like the other guys have. Fine by me. The Party is dying, and the sooner that happens the better.
But just in case someone is paying attention you get yourself an assured, ironed-assed individual who lives, breathes and eats the nonaggression principle, and who will dynamically articulate it without backing down or watering it down and the Paulites are yours for the taking. Serve up some Harry Browne and it is LP DOA . . . or, GOP-lite.
[Nice Post, and here I was thinking I was going to have to delete a troll post by “Fascist Nation.” Regards, MJ]