The Elegance of Ron Paul Sunday, April 25, 2010
Somebody convince him to run in 2012.[ posted by Mattheus @ 11:56 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]
10 Comments:
-
At Mon Apr 26, 11:08:00 AM EDT,
Taylor Conant said...
-
Mattheus,
Not sure if you mean "eloquence" or "elegance" as you typed but either way I am confused as to why you're cheering a man who speaks in meaningless, collective terms?
What are "the national security interests of the United States"? -
At Mon Apr 26, 02:29:00 PM EDT,
Mattheus said...
-
Taylor,
Yes, I realize phrases like "the collective embodiment of individual desires to be secure" are really nonsensical because they are applied aggregately.
I was rather hoping we could look past the criticism of words and phrases that make no sense in anarcho-capitalist vernacular and instead focus on what I found inspiring: the fact that a man stood up in front of the entire House chamber and had the balls to call everyone in there a rabid imperialist. Maybe we can stop nitpicking and focus on the peace message. -
At Mon Apr 26, 02:33:00 PM EDT,
Taylor Conant said...
-
Mattheus,
Oh yes, I agree! Because language is not important. And when people manipulate it, other people aren't fooled into abandoning freedom and sound, principled thinking as a result.
Do carry on, and in the future, please don't let my trivial "nitpicking" about the abuse of the English language get in the way of your kumbayas! -
At Mon Apr 26, 05:27:00 PM EDT,
Mattheus said...
-
Taylor,
Good lord. The man is advocating peace and a change in our highly imperialistic foreign policy, and the first thing that comes to your mind is "What a fool to believe in a 'US foreign policy.'"
You don't have to denounce everyone that is not an anarchist. We should be happy that someone in our government is trying to shrink it. -
At Mon Apr 26, 05:46:00 PM EDT,
Taylor Conant said...
-
Mattheus,
War is what nations do. So long as RP stands for the idea of a "nation" he will be implictly supporting war-fighting even if he explicitly stands up and speaks out (to an empty House chamber, btw... you think anyone actually sat around and listened to this guy drone on and on like this?) against it.
If RP ran for president in 2012, what do you hope for that to accomplish? -
At Mon Apr 26, 05:53:00 PM EDT,
Mattheus said...
-
Taylor,
At the very least, I hope that we remove our physical presence from countries around the world, engage in more diplomatic solutions to "national security" problems, get rid of protectionist, anti-trade measures, and spare the rest of the world from further direct US aggression.
I don't expect everything to be hunky-dory, but I think RP is far far better than any of his welfare/warfare opponents for presidency. -
At Mon Apr 26, 05:55:00 PM EDT,
Taylor Conant said...
-
Mattheus,
Congratulations. And so, before RP was a presidential contenda (never has been and never will be a serious one, of course, because the political system is not designed to create outcomes involving liberty but instead to maximize the occurence of violent intrusions-- this is called political efficiency and it's what institutionalized coercion and theft is constructed to achieve)-- I suppose you were an eager supporter of the "lesser evil" before him? Nevermind if they stomped on a liberty here and there, like Mr. Paul, yes? -
At Mon Apr 26, 06:18:00 PM EDT,
Mattheus said...
-
Taylor,
I was indeed.
For all practical purposes, there is no chance to remove government entirely by the next election season (although I would very much like to see it done in my lifetime).
Given that some liberties will be infringed upon, the pertinent question is: how many?
If you had a choice between losing your left or your right arm, and there was no reasonably practical way to avoid losing either, the majority of your time would be spend deliberating which should be lost, not arguing with the arm-removing establishment.
If the war for freedom cannot be won immediately, we must be content to win battles here and there. -
At Mon Apr 26, 06:23:00 PM EDT,
Taylor Conant said...
-
Mattheus,
All your careless babbling is for nought when you realize that whatever decision you make in regards to the question "how many?" will be completely insignificant as far as expressing your voice via the ballot box is concerned.
If you will accomplish anything by voting, it will be the reinforcement of your own chains, as you legitimize the very system that seeks to enslave you further.
You feel like a big boy when you use the undefined "we", don't you? -
At Mon Apr 26, 06:26:00 PM EDT,
Taylor Conant said...
-
Mattheus,
A little post-script, I wasn't going to bother pointing this out because I figured it should be obvious but then I re-read your post and realized it isn't obvious to you or you wouldn't have just said what you said:
You just made a case for NOT supporting RP for president, but instead to support whoever is most likely to win and then to try to earn some favor/influence with them so you can have a say in the policies they create.
RP will NEVER (not in his lifetime, anyway, which is the only lifetime relevant to consider) be the president. If you're trying to decide which of your ligaments gets torn off, you'd be much wiser to canvass for one of the two warmongering parties' candidates as they've both demonstrated they can and will win elections.
