One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[Katganistan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&feature=player_embedded#!

Amazingly thought provoking ad. I just think it needs to be turned down a few thousand notches. He brings up some excellent points though.

[Ashmoria]

no

[Bengera]

no

Well there's one way of putting it.

[Galloism]

Do we normally ransack homes in Germany?

[The Black Forrest]

Imagine if Texas had used it's States rights and invited the Chinese to set up a base.

A little too long of an ad and to end it with a bad recording?

[Whittoria]

All I heard was "..IN TEXAS!" shouted by the narrator.

Did Ron Paul just win?

Does Dolly Parton sleep on her stomach?

[Ashmoria]

no

Well there's one way of putting it.

....

having watched it now, id say that if he werent already going to lose it would clinch his loss.

[Oterro]

IMAGINE IMAGINE IMAGINE IMAGINE ALLL THE PEOPLEEEEE

[Galloism]

Well there's one way of putting it.

....

having watched it now, id say that if he werent already going to lose it would clinch his loss.

Agreed.

People will take it as him criticizing the troops.

They won't take that well.

[New Conglomerate]

Wow. He even lied in the video. Obama never promised to bring all of our troops home. Just that he would end the Iraq War.

Well done ad, though. I must admit that.

[Augarundus]

Is this an official Ron Paul ad? I know it's based off of his very eloquent "imagine" speech....

Ron Paul is an admirable candidate (and sometimes a very eloquent one); I'm shocked that some of his supporters are intelligent. They stand out in the political puppet-show of elections in the US.

But Ron Paul will be (and already is) subject to ludicrous criticisms by the media (which, at least, is better than being outright ignored). In office, he will face widespread, bipartisan opposition (the Republicans will fight his anti-war policies, the Democrats will fight his economic liberalization, and everyone will defend the fed). The ecosystem of parasites dependent on the state will riot against any small policy he chooses to enact; he will have literally no political capital in office.

For libertarians, engaging the state is a hopeless pursuit...

[Ile Normaine]

Do we normally ransack homes in Germany?

We do have plenty of soldiers there. Honestly I don't think we need to worry about German carbombs though.

[Ile Normaine]

Is this an official Ron Paul ad? I know it's based off of his very eloquent "imagine" speech....

Ron Paul is an admirable candidate (and sometimes a very eloquent one); I'm shocked that some of his supporters are intelligent. They stand out in the political puppet-show of elections in the US.

But Ron Paul will be (and already is) subject to ludicrous criticisms by the media (which, at least, is better than being outright ignored). In office, he will face widespread, bipartisan opposition (the Republicans will fight his anti-war policies, the Democrats will fight his economic liberalization, and everyone will defend the fed). The ecosystem of parasites dependent on the state will riot against any small policy he chooses to enact; he will have literally no political capital in office.

For libertarians, engaging the state is a hopeless pursuit...

Then there is no point in living in America. At all.

[Augarundus]

Wow. He even lied in the video. Obama never promised to bring all of our troops home. Just that he would end the Iraq War.

Well done ad, though. I must admit that.

Obama theoretically supported the US' strategic role in Afghanistan, but did promise an earlier withdrawal from Iraq than that which was actually made. His campaign discourse also was clearly indicative of a desire to withdraw from Afghanistan.

This ad was also not put out by the Ron Paul campaign; it was a third-party organization (note the lack of a "I'm Ron Paul and I approve of this message"). It's really well done, though.

[The Floridian Coast]

God I wish I even remotely agreed with him on economics, I'd love to vote for him then.

Unfortunately, this ad might not be effective. Even though they say differently, many Americans view Middle Eastern people as a completely different species. They can't make that connection. They can't relate.

[Bengera]

Wow. He even lied in the video. Obama never promised to bring all of our troops home. Just that he would end the Iraq War.

And that he did.

[Augarundus]

Then there is no point in living in America. At all.

An eloquent response by Stefan Molyneux:

Before we start talking about how to achieve a stateless society, I think that it is important to spend some time talking about how not to achieve a stateless society. For the past several hundred years – really since the late 18th century – intellectuals, priests, philosophers, academics and activists of every stripe and hue have been striving with all their considerable intellectual and moral might to place theoretical and practical limits upon the power of the state. The original American experiment was at least intellectually founded upon the ideal of creating a government by and for the people, with the express knowledge that the state was a dangerous servant and a terrible master. It is hard to think of other examples in history where so many checks and balances were placed upon centralized political power – and it is also impossible to think of a more dangerous and powerful government than the modern American leviathan. The abysmal failure of such a noble experiment should give all moralists pause. If the smallest possible government has grown into the largest conceivable government – within a few hundred years – it is hard to imagine what kind of theoretical system could conceivably control state growth in the future. [Political action] This approach takes as its fundamental axiom the idea that if the general citizens were educated enough, and motivated enough, and insistent enough, then the natural democratic process would shrink the size and power of the state. Candidates such as Ron Paul would gain enough of a popular mandate to stride into Washington, wrestle the entrenched special interest groups, flush out the sewage of accumulated corruption, and take back the government for the people! To this end, libertarians of all persuasions have either directly participated in or supported the pursuit of political action, usually from a grassroots level. The political process is considered either to be a practical way of gaining – and thus diminishing – political power, or at the very least a “bully pulpit” from which to communicate to a wider audience the libertarian ideals of small government. It hardly seems premature to compare the goals of libertarianism to its actual achievements. This scarcely violates the basic principles of libertarianism, as it claims to be a logical and empirical approach to determining truth and value in the world. One of the central libertarian arguments against statist solutions is that they promise endless benefits, but deliver endless disasters. “Look at the welfare state!” libertarians pontificate. “It promised to reduce poverty, but since it has been instituted, poverty has only gotten worse!” Similarly, libertarians say, governments claim to protect their citizens, while in fact continually attacking their persons and property. Thus libertarianism rejects theoretical proclamations in favor of tangible, real world empirical evidence. […]Free market economists constantly tell us that people respond to incentives. Whatever you subsidize increases – and whatever you tax decreases. Libertarians also tell us that statist bureaucracies will never solve the problems they are created to solve, because if the welfare state were to actually eliminate poverty, it would have to disband, throwing everyone within it out of work. It is to the advantage of the welfare state, libertarians and economists tell us, to actually increase the numbers of poor people, since that results in increased funding for anti-poverty programs.5 It is interesting to note that these esteemed thinkers do not say that everyone except libertarians responds to incentives – thus we can reasonably assume that libertarian organizations are subject to the same economic principles as every other group. If the funding of libertarian groups increases as the size of the state increases, then we can reasonably assume that those who run libertarian groups are actually being paid to increase the size of the state – just as the heads of welfare agencies are paid to increase the numbers of the poor. I understand and accept that these are not conscious motives – any more than some welfare czar wakes up every morning, rubs his well-oiled moustache and giggles with glee at the reality that creating more poor people expands his political empire. It is not through the malevolence or bad intent of any particular individuals that such things come to pass, but rather it is an inevitable law of economics, since people respond to incentives. I do not speak theoretically here – without a doubt, the largest political campaign in libertarian history was the Ron Paul candidacy, which raised over $20 million, at a time when the growth of state power was considered the most dangerous. As the size and power of the state grows, so does the money and attention rolling into libertarianism. Perhaps you feel that this charge is unreasonable, or even shocking? Perhaps. However, there is a simple empirical test. Libertarians would be able to easily destroy any charge of corruption by simply and honestly reviewing and examining their catastrophic failures over the past few decades – let alone the past few centuries. Sadly, however, such self-criticism and self-examination is not only not part of the movement – it is actively avoided and attacked if it ever dares to raise its head. If libertarians genuinely believe that they themselves are immune to financial incentives, then they are saying that they are excluded from a founding principle of economics. If libertarians can pursue their primary goal in opposition to economic incentives, then surely this would be possible for statist bureaucracies as well. If those who inhabit statist bureaucracies always follow their economic incentives, then surely that same law must apply to libertarians as well. When an organization consistently achieves the exact opposite of its stated goals, refuses to examine or change its strategy, continually takes in more money the worse things get, and attacks anyone who questions its fundamental approaches, then by any reasonable standard that organization has become irredeemably corrupt, and must be abandoned by the sane and rational – or at least those to whom the reduction of state power is a real goal, and not just a bait for income.

Deep down, everybody knows that what is called “society” is little more than a series of violent mythologies designed to keep the powers that be aloft. Biologically, people are designed for conformity with the group rather than integrity to the truth, since conformity encouraged survival, and integrity mostly got you killed. When you ask a man to admit the violence and mythology of what he calls “morality,” it is not the rulers who primarily make him afraid, but rather it is his peer social group – his friends, acquaintances, work colleagues and family. I say this based on 25 years of experience – I am sure you have had exactly the same experience – which is that I have been arguing for voluntarism and freedom for decades, and have never once been attacked, sanctioned or even goosed by state agents. No, it is always and forever only my fellow citizens who attack the truth – who attack me, rather, since the truth cannot be “attacked,” but only accepted or disproved. When I posed a series of rational and empirical questions and criticisms of the efficacy of the Ron Paul campaign, I was not audited by the IRS or cornered by men in black. Rather, it was the libertarian community and the Ron Paul supporters who turned against me. Everyone knows that when you begin to question the philosophical and moral assumptions – often unconscious, to be sure, but even more dangerous because of that – of your peer social group, they will turn on you most savagely. Every Christian knows that if he begins to persistently question the existence of God, he will be rapidly ejected from his supposedlyloving peer group. And he also knows, deep down, that he will be ejected not because he is wrong, but rather because he is right.Meletus decided to attack Socrates, rather than any of the other thousands of Sophists infesting the culture of ancient Greece – because Socrates was right – not necessarily in all his conclusions, since no one achieves that, but rather in his fluid, empirical and rational methodology for approaching the truth. Everyone knows that what they consider necessary conformity is actually just enslavement to error. Everyone knows that it is not the state that keeps us in chains; we keep each other in chains. The state merely profits from our willingness – eagerness even – to attack each other. It is far cheaper to keep slaves when the slaves eagerly police themselves. Religion is fundamentally not a belief in an invisible God, but the fear of attack by the peer group. Statism is fundamentally not the belief that the government is virtuous, but the fear of attack by the peer group if one dares to say otherwise. Libertarianism is fundamentally not the belief that political action, religious affiliation and academic education will bring freedom, but rather the fear of attack by the libertarian peer group if one dares to question these axioms.

From the book, "How (Not) to Achieve Freedom".


There are means of achieving libertarianism without participating in the democratic process.

[Free Soviets]

i think a blogger for the grauniad put it best during debate #603 this pre-primary season.

"Paul appears to be running for President of Iran. Which is a novel tactic in a Republican presidential campaign."

[Augarundus]

i think a blogger for the grauniad put it best during debate #603 this pre-primary season.

"Paul appears to be running for President of Iran. Which is a novel tactic in a Republican presidential campaign."

...?

'Bumper slogan' political discourse doesn't counter Ron Paul's understanding of blowback theory or non-interventionist realism.

[Xanixi]

Except, Ron, our military bases are either fighting threats to OUR SOIL, or were invited BY THE HOST NATION. Not to mention that I don't see US troops ransacking Spanish, English, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, or other foreign nation's houses, and killing their inhabitants. Iraq and Afghanistan are wars against people who dress like the civilians living there. I'm not saying that justifies the civilian casualties, but it justifies us having to search houses and villages.

Oh, and Obama didn't stop the war, Ron?

Bush invaded Iraq with 148,000 American troops.

Bush invaded Afghanistan in an attempt to find Osama and was incapable of doing so.

Obama completed the mission in Iraq, and left 6,000 troops to train the Iraqi forces.

Obama found Osama, eliminated him, and calls for the withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq by September of this year.

How fast do you think you can withdraw troops, Ron? We're fighting a war, not just having them stationed there.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&feature=player_embedded#!

Amazingly thought provoking ad. I just think it needs to be turned down a few thousand notches. He brings up some excellent points though.

No, he doesn't.

Not at all.

Even considering the Taliban "freedom fighters" is offensive to the term.

[Augarundus]

Except, Ron, our military bases are either fighting threats to OUR SOIL, or were invited BY THE HOST NATION. Not to mention that I don't see US troops ransacking Spanish, English, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, or other foreign nation's houses, and killing their inhabitants. Iraq and Afghanistan are wars against people who dress like the civilians living there. I'm not saying that justifies the civilian casualties, but it justifies us having to search houses and villages.

1) I'm always bothered by "our" soil; "us" searching houses and villages. We the Americans doing what is necessary to protect "us" against "them".

2) Ron Paul's criticism of non-combat US military deployment (Spanish, English, etc.) is a financial one (that over-extension of US military resources is a budgetary strain)... Ron Paul would probably assert that more efficient manners of deterrence/hard power projection exist (ICBMs, for example) that would deter rational states in the realist sense, and that this presence doesn't assist in combating non-state actors or rogue states (who aren't subject to deterrence theory anyway).

3) Ron Paul promotes the use of soft power (which appears to be China's foreign policy for most of the world; why China has established such strong relations with central Asian and east African nations) for establishing strong relations/disabling rogue state threats.

4) Ron Paul criticizes the deployment of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq because they produce hatred of the US (along with civilian and military casualties the war has incurred); the US is seen as a violent, imperial aggressor. Statistically speaking, the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has only produced more hatred of the US; up to 1.5 million Iraqis were killed a result of American sanctions on Iraq. Osama bin Ladin's stated reasons for the 9/11 terrorist attacks were responding to American occupation of Saudi Arabia and sanctions on Iraq.

5) Note that "you look like a Muslim" justifies armed men breaking into native homes, rummaging through and damaging belongings, and leaving without recompense. And yet the public still doesn't understand the hatred of the United States this produces?

E
Obama found Osama, eliminated him, and calls for the withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq by September of this year.

How fast do you think you can withdraw troops, Ron? We're fighting a war, not just having them stationed there.

1) LoL, Obama "found Osama".

2) Ron Paul would withdraw troops immediately; he has repeatably said that a withdrawal would occur "ASAP".

3) Against whom is the US fighting a war? There is no rational state actor combating US presence; there is no supreme leader or council who can capitulate in the end? There is no possibility for 'victory' in Iraq and Afghanistan because there is nothing that determines victory.

[Ragnarsdomr]

Excellent, he still thinks China is the bigger threat. The Canadian disinformation campaign continues its devilish work...

And on the other hand, no, no he did not just win. Though he had an awesome voice actor for that commercial, and I would whisper sweet nothings to that voice long into the night if I had a chance. Now, if he had read the commercial out himself... I would not be so enthused.

[Augarundus]

Excellent, he still thinks China is the bigger threat. The Canadian disinformation campaign continues its devilish work...

What? How does this commercial depict China as a threat?

[Kvatchdom]

Well, he's better than the other candidates. But he's still quote crazy, so no support from me.