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

[Wikkiwallana]

I didn't say a thing about the rich not being undertaxed. That does not mean the non-rich are overtaxed.

OK. That's an opinion.
You know how much my father payed in taxes last year?
About 80 grand. He's not really rich or anything either. But it's ridiculous that he has to pay that much out of his hard earned money, while banksters get million dollar bonuses from the government after perpetrating fraud and never paying taxes.

Given that 80 grand is more than both my parents combined make in a year, I can't really say I feel your pain. Tax rates across the board are at major lows:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151
http://www.ocregister.com/news/-117079-ocprint--.html

Also: Banksters?

[Ravineworld]

OK. That's an opinion.
You know how much my father payed in taxes last year?
About 80 grand. He's not really rich or anything either. But it's ridiculous that he has to pay that much out of his hard earned money, while banksters get million dollar bonuses from the government after perpetrating fraud and never paying taxes.

Given that 80 grand is more than both my parents combined make in a year, I can't really say I feel your pain. Tax rates across the board are at major lows:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151
http://www.ocregister.com/news/-117079-ocprint--.html

Also: Banksters?

Fair enough. I'll drop the tax discussion.
As for the banksters. Have you never heard that term?
I mean, it's one of the rallying cries of OWS, which, strangely, I support! (mainly because it has some anti-federal reserve tones within it).
I though liberals know the rallying cries of OWS

[Grave_n_idle]

When you've got two parties that form almost the entire spectrum, a tiny difference is all it takes to be 'the fastest growing' party. But I suspect you're aware of the conflation you've just attempted - suggesting that libertarians and 'the libertarian party' are (even remotely) connected.

A proportion of the Republican party get so embarrassed at identifying as Republicans that they start calling themselves something else... it's not a meaningful trend.

You are wrong once again.
While I agree that the majority of the newbies in the LPUSA that are running for office are just republicans who are scared to admit that they want to be a part of another party, the majority of newbies in the LPUSA who are just regular people are just people who are sick and tired of high taxes on the poor and middle class, endless wars in the middle east, new versions of the patriot act being passed all the time, and a growing dissatisfaction with the two partys fighting each other more than fighting for the good of the nation.

No they aren't.

You're pushing the same kind of bullshit that the Tea Party tried to sell before everyone realised what a crock of shit that was - the libertarian party is white, wealthy, lipservice-Christian conservatives embarrassed by the label 'Republican'.

One only has to look at the sorts of candidates they've fielded - Bob Barr and Ron Paul, for example, to see that they are a shell - Republicans in wolf's clothing.

And it's not just true of the leadership - it's the rank and file, too. You might wish it was about the Middle East or the patriot act, but it's not. It's about the current GOP exodus. Wait until the GOP becomes slightly less of an embarrassment, and watch the exodites abandon ship so fast it leaves their heads spinning. The fact that the same people that are bailing on the GOP are ALSO whining about their tax burden while taxes are at their lowest ebb in some time does NOT mean that people are joining the libertarians because of the tax burden.

[Ravineworld]

You are wrong once again.
While I agree that the majority of the newbies in the LPUSA that are running for office are just republicans who are scared to admit that they want to be a part of another party, the majority of newbies in the LPUSA who are just regular people are just people who are sick and tired of high taxes on the poor and middle class, endless wars in the middle east, new versions of the patriot act being passed all the time, and a growing dissatisfaction with the two partys fighting each other more than fighting for the good of the nation.

No they aren't.

You're pushing the same kind of bullshit that the Tea Party tried to sell before everyone realised what a crock of shit that was - the libertarian party is white, wealthy, lipservice-Christian conservatives embarrassed by the label 'Republican'.

One only has to look at the sorts of candidates they've fielded - Bob Barr and Ron Paul, for example, to see that they are a shell - Republicans in wolf's clothing.

And it's not just true of the leadership - it's the rank and file, too. You might wish it was about the Middle East or the patriot act, but it's not. It's about the current GOP exodus. Wait until the GOP becomes slightly less of an embarrassment, and watch the exodites abandon ship so fast it leaves their heads spinning. The fact that the same people that are bailing on the GOP are ALSO whining about their tax burden while taxes are at their lowest ebb in some time does NOT mean that people are joining the libertarians because of the tax burden.

I am saying that the leadership is being invaded by GOP wackjobs.
But, the rest of the party is being built by moderates and liberal libertarians who are mad at both parties, and are looking for something new

[Wikkiwallana]

Given that 80 grand is more than both my parents combined make in a year, I can't really say I feel your pain. Tax rates across the board are at major lows:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151
http://www.ocregister.com/news/-117079-ocprint--.html

Also: Banksters?

Fair enough. I'll drop the tax discussion.
As for the banksters. Have you never heard that term?
I mean, it's one of the rallying cries of OWS, which, strangely, I support! (mainly because it has some anti-federal reserve tones within it).
I though liberals know the rallying cries of OWS

Only other place I've heard of it was one other person on this board who claimed to have come up with it. I haven't really been keeping up with OWS.

[Grave_n_idle]

But, the rest of the party is being built by moderates and liberal libertarians who are mad at both parties, and are looking for something new

And I'm saying you're wrong. I'm saying the rest of the party is made of Republicans in fancy dress.

[Ravineworld]

But, the rest of the party is being built by moderates and liberal libertarians who are mad at both parties, and are looking for something new

And I'm saying you're wrong. I'm saying the rest of the party is made of Republicans in fancy dress.

You aren't a follower of the libertarian party. I follow it, I read about it, I watch the debates, I read about the candidates.
I think I would know more than you about the libertarian party
And yes, the leadership is mainly radical objectivists (they tried to discourage ancaps and as a result, the number of rothbardians has declined), or warmongering "ex" (also known as in the closet) social conservatives. But the people making the party grow are not them, they are moderate republicans who are angry about the bush years and equally angry about the republican radical socially conservative beliefs, or liberal civil libertarians that are angry about their party's support of war, and lack of support for gun rights. Also there is the occasional paleo-conservative angry about war. But they are a rare breed these days, and most paleo-cons tend to lean towards the constitution party or the reform party.

[Grave_n_idle]

And I'm saying you're wrong. I'm saying the rest of the party is made of Republicans in fancy dress.

You aren't a follower of the libertarian party. I follow it, I read about it, I watch the debates, I read about the candidates.
I think I would know more than you about the libertarian party
And yes, the leadership is mainly radical objectivists (they tried to discourage ancaps and as a result, the number of rothbardians has declined), or warmongering "ex" (also known as in the closet) social conservatives. But the people making the party grow are not them, they are moderate republicans who are angry about the bush years and equally angry about the republican radical socially conservative beliefs, or liberal civil libertarians that are angry about their party's support of war, and lack of support for gun rights. Also there is the occasional paleo-conservative angry about war. But they are a rare breed these days, and most paleo-cons tend to lean towards the constitution party or the reform party.

I'd tell you to read my post history, except that much of it likely no longer exists. Which is unfortunate. I was a libertarian, before it was cool. And I rejected it. I rejected it because I believe the philosophy itself is inherently evil. I also rejected it because I've seen who libertarians are - social conservatives who object to any tax burden at all and lifelong Republicans who are embarrassed by that party affiliation.

[Ravineworld]

You aren't a follower of the libertarian party. I follow it, I read about it, I watch the debates, I read about the candidates.
I think I would know more than you about the libertarian party
And yes, the leadership is mainly radical objectivists (they tried to discourage ancaps and as a result, the number of rothbardians has declined), or warmongering "ex" (also known as in the closet) social conservatives. But the people making the party grow are not them, they are moderate republicans who are angry about the bush years and equally angry about the republican radical socially conservative beliefs, or liberal civil libertarians that are angry about their party's support of war, and lack of support for gun rights. Also there is the occasional paleo-conservative angry about war. But they are a rare breed these days, and most paleo-cons tend to lean towards the constitution party or the reform party.

I'd tell you to read my post history, except that much of it likely no longer exists. Which is unfortunate. I was a libertarian, before it was cool. And I rejected it. I rejected it because I believe the philosophy itself is inherently evil. I also rejected it because I've seen who libertarians are - social conservatives who object to any tax burden at all and lifelong Republicans who are embarrassed by that party affiliation.

OK.
You are wrong about that. You really are. Paulists are like that. Paleo-libertarians are like that. Neo-libertarians aren't. Calling a whole party of people just a bunch of selfish in the closet social conservatives is preposterous. Calling growth within a party that as well is preposterous. Libertarians are very socially liberal.
I'm done discussing this with you, because you seem intent on ripping my favorite party to shreds because of personal dislike of our philosophy. It's really a shame, because I really would have enjoyed a discussion of the LPUSA's politics.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'd tell you to read my post history, except that much of it likely no longer exists. Which is unfortunate. I was a libertarian, before it was cool. And I rejected it. I rejected it because I believe the philosophy itself is inherently evil. I also rejected it because I've seen who libertarians are - social conservatives who object to any tax burden at all and lifelong Republicans who are embarrassed by that party affiliation.

OK.
You are wrong about that. You really are. Paulists are like that. Paleo-libertarians are like that. Neo-libertarians aren't. Calling a whole party of people just a bunch of selfish in the closet social conservatives is preposterous. Calling growth within a party that as well is preposterous. Libertarians are very socially liberal.
I'm done discussing this with you, because you seem intent on ripping my favorite party to shreds because of personal dislike of our philosophy. It's really a shame, because I really would have enjoyed a discussion of the LPUSA's politics.

My brother-in-law is very active in the libertarian party. I'm not distant from the issue. Indeed, I'm rather closer than I would ever wish to be. 'Libertarians' might be very socially liberal - but there are none (well, maybe just very, very few) of them in the libertarian party, or among prominent people claiming to be libertarian. No, the libertarian party is extremely socially restrictive. They are also very un-American, placing personal advancement far above the best interests of the American people.

So what we're discussing here is kind of a No True Scotsman fallacy. The people you might call true libertarians, aren't in the libertarian party. Nor do they represent most of the people that call themselves libertarian.

Which is actually almost irrelevant, because - as I already pointed out some time ago, the current libertarian enrollment is less than the actual number of votes Bob Barr got. Libertarians are no more numerous.

[Dyakovo]

I'd watch for a third party if I were you.
Americans elect and the libertarian party are both looking like they might be able to get into a debate.

No body but teenagers and college students know what Americans elect is, and the Republicans and Democrats will keep the Libertarians off just like they did to Nader.

False... I'm neither a teenager nor a college student and I know what Americans Elect is...

[The Steel Magnolia]

No body but teenagers and college students know what Americans elect is, and the Republicans and Democrats will keep the Libertarians off just like they did to Nader.

False... I'm neither a teenager nor a college student and I know what Americans Elect is...

I think it was more joking, as those are generally the most numerous of people who know what Americans Elect are.

[Raeyh]

OK.
You are wrong about that. You really are. Paulists are like that. Paleo-libertarians are like that. Neo-libertarians aren't. Calling a whole party of people just a bunch of selfish in the closet social conservatives is preposterous. Calling growth within a party that as well is preposterous. Libertarians are very socially liberal.
I'm done discussing this with you, because you seem intent on ripping my favorite party to shreds because of personal dislike of our philosophy. It's really a shame, because I really would have enjoyed a discussion of the LPUSA's politics.

Aren't Neo-libertarians just Libertarians who like engaging in warfare?

[Ravineworld]

OK.
You are wrong about that. You really are. Paulists are like that. Paleo-libertarians are like that. Neo-libertarians aren't. Calling a whole party of people just a bunch of selfish in the closet social conservatives is preposterous. Calling growth within a party that as well is preposterous. Libertarians are very socially liberal.
I'm done discussing this with you, because you seem intent on ripping my favorite party to shreds because of personal dislike of our philosophy. It's really a shame, because I really would have enjoyed a discussion of the LPUSA's politics.

Aren't Neo-libertarians just Libertarians who like engaging in warfare?

Uh, no. That's neo-conservatives
Big, big, big difference (there's the occasional neo-conservative civil libertarian, but that's about as close as you'll get).
True libertarians are peaceful people, although many in the movement prefer violent means of establishing a minarchist/market anarchist state.

[Free Soviets]

Actually, the libertarian party is the fastest growing party in the US.

you guys peaked in the vote in 1980, and have gotten just over half that - at best - anytime since.

[Ravineworld]

Actually, the libertarian party is the fastest growing party in the US.

you guys peaked in the vote in 1980, and have gotten just over half that - at best - anytime since.

Yeah, but party membership is growing.
Along with awareness about the party

[Death Metal]

To be fair, he's right. Until 2004 I didn't realize there was a party even more corrupt and abhorrent to what the Founders envisioned than the Republican party.

[Ravineworld]

To be fair, he's right. Until 2004 I didn't realize there was a party even more corrupt and abhorrent to what the Founders envisioned than the Republican party.

Damn, I thought you'd hate the constitution party more!
Actually, the founders were some of the world's first right libertarians.

[Free Soviets]

Actually, the founders were some of the world's first right libertarians.

do you mean the ones that were slaver scum or the ones envisioning large-scale government handouts for the old and the poor?

[Revolutopia]

To be fair, he's right. Until 2004 I didn't realize there was a party even more corrupt and abhorrent to what the Founders envisioned than the Republican party.

Damn, I thought you'd hate the constitution party more!
Actually, the founders were some of the world's first right libertarians.

Not really, as there had been classical liberals before them. Along with how the Founding Fathers had a diverse number of ideas of how government should be run, that is a misnomer to consider them right libertarians.

For example, we have Washington and Hamilton establishing a Central Bank and promoting the accumulation of a national debt and protectionism. None of which would typically fly with most modern right libertarians. Next, you have Adams passing the Alien and Sedation Act which most Libertarians(both left and right) would decry. Thomas Jefferson passed legislation closing free trade between America and their European trade partner, along with his purchase of Louisiana something many pointed out shouldn't be allowed under a Jefferson's own strict views on the constitution. Finally, James Madison established a second Central Bank and drove the US into a war. And that is just a quick overview of some of the most famous Founding Fathers.

[Death Metal]

Not really. They were progressives who didn't much care for one of the largest corporations at the time (The East India Trade Company) getting tax-exempt status in Colonial England.

And business regulation was deemed an important enough power to give to congress in the Constitution.

Hell, even Monroe wouldn't label himself a libertarian.

[Death Metal]

Also, fun fact, the Founders didn't even want popular votes for President to matter period. The Electoral College was designed to vote on their own choice and not to vote the way the states voted.

[Peoples Republic of Love]

I used to be an avid ron paul supporter. I still like his foreign policy in a sense. It's good that he talks about "blow back". However, Noam Chomsky does a far better job of critiquing US foreign policy than Paul ever has and certainly his economics are much more sensible than right libertarianism. A completely unregulated market isn't exploitative? Give me a fucking break!
As for the question about the founding fathers, many of them were fairly socialist, supporting healthcare programs for naval soldiers etc. Also, libertarianism originally arose within the revolutionary anarcho-communist sects of france after their revolution. The first person to call themselves a "libertarian" was an anarcho-communist.

[Revolutopia]

I used to be an avid ron paul supporter. I still like his foreign policy in a sense. It's good that he talks about "blow back". However, Noam Chomsky does a far better job of critiquing US foreign policy than Paul ever has and certainly his economics are much more sensible than right libertarianism. A completely unregulated market isn't exploitative? Give me a fucking break!
As for the question about the founding fathers, many of them were fairly socialist, supporting healthcare programs for naval soldiers etc. Also, libertarianism originally arose within the revolutionary anarcho-communist sects of france after their revolution. The first person to call themselves a "libertarian" was an anarcho-communist.

I wouldn't really classify any Founding Father socialist, mainly as socialist theory still was not that developed around the formation of the nation.

[Peoples Republic of Love]

I used to be an avid ron paul supporter. I still like his foreign policy in a sense. It's good that he talks about "blow back". However, Noam Chomsky does a far better job of critiquing US foreign policy than Paul ever has and certainly his economics are much more sensible than right libertarianism. A completely unregulated market isn't exploitative? Give me a fucking break!
As for the question about the founding fathers, many of them were fairly socialist, supporting healthcare programs for naval soldiers etc. Also, libertarianism originally arose within the revolutionary anarcho-communist sects of france after their revolution. The first person to call themselves a "libertarian" was an anarcho-communist.

I wouldn't really classify any Founding Father socialist, mainly as socialist theory still was not that developed around the formation of the nation.

No no they certainly weren't socialist, but they did support some socialistic policies, contrary to what the average right winger wants you to think.