-5 votes

rhino's hypothesis

I found myself wondering what it is, about the liberty movement, that makes us do this; the DP, the delegate fight after all is lost, the uncompromising insistence on principles above everything else, but mainly the outright non-stop continuous vetting that we perform on our own candidates and elected officials. The Hukster had a loyal following but his forums never really blossomed. The Christian Coalition had put their backing behind Bachmann and Santorum and I did not see a huge, organic social network develop and grow around them. What is interesting is that Obama’s Hope and Change did what we did, and are doing, back in 2007, but it appears that has fallen off the cliff, which, if I am right, it is because his followers are similar to ours in there unforgiving insistence on principle and I think, for the most part, that movement, had a similar makeup of people and personalities as does the R3volution.

Going back in time I began to think of candidates that could have inspired similar grassroots behavior if the information age was added to the equation. I came up with names like Buchanan in ’92, Perot, Nader, Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, James Garfield, William Jennings Bryan, and George Washington.

I began to see a pattern, but I really refused to allow myself to admit that I was right given my own preconceived notions about what I was seeing.

Obviously it requires one to be an ideologue to be a part of something like this and the movement requires a strong idealist leader such as a Ron Paul, but that did not seem to cover all the necessary ingredients. As a student of historical revolutions I also know that a shrinking middle class and a sudden drop in the standard of living is the only thing required for a violent revolution, but that is not what we are about, and if that were to occur I think we would be equally divided on either side of an event like that. So I began to search for that missing ingredient that we possess in the hopes that we continue to embrace it and not inadvertently expel it from the R3volution.

The Rand Paul endorsement was a strong emotional moment for almost everyone here and in the days that followed, as I observed this blog I felt like I figured it out. I wanted some data on this so I started a poll question here. (http://www.dailypaul.com/239815/rhino-an-interesting-poll-qu...)
I really don’t think the sample size was large enough to inspire confidence one way or the other, so I will describe my hypothesis here and then I would like for you to go back to that poll question and ponder it for a bit. Answer it if you like.

I want to also offer a warning to everyone before I submit my hypothesis. If I am right, no matter which category you find yourself, resist the urge to leave and fight the urge to attempt to expel, because the makeup of this movement is more important than anything else. If the scales are tipped in one direction or another it will have a devastating impact. The Rand Paul critics seem to be equally important to our progress as the Rand Paul supporters and that can be said for every issue that is discussed here on the DP.

And if we all realize this and come to the same conclusion as I have it will automatically create some comfort in your thoughts, resolve in your life, confidence in your self, and above all else, patience in the present.

As Ayn Rand pointed out, human beings are capable of two types of concepts; one built on reason and the other built on faith. She dismissed faith as laziness, slothfullness, and she even considered such concepts less than human. She argued that resorting to faith was a regression to instinct, like a barbaric animal, and that reason is what made a human being a human being. She called it the conscience. Our ability to reason and think is what creates the concepts of right and wrong, because to an animal there is no right and wrong there is simply instinct (survive or die). This is a bit simplistic but it is not a flawed summary of the philosophy that she invented called objectivism. One other way to look at it is that if reason could not explain a concept, then the only thing left is magic or mysticism, or (in her opinion) faith or religion and she dismissed this type of concept until it could be explained thru reason.

The Libertarian movement was founded on much of her philosophy and that is what makes it so logical and well reasoned, and, serendipitously, that is why there are a disproportionate number of atheists in the Libertarian movement. At that moment in history, they needed a preverbal home and their options were extremely limited.

And then along came Ron Paul (A devout Christian). In 1988 this was an enormous struggle and was a subject of strong debate within the Libertarian Party, and that discussion and battle still remains today.

If one were to imagine this concept in a straight line where pure mysticism is on the far right and pure reason is on the far left, my hypothesis can be described by visualizing this graph.

Here is my hypothesis …

If one were to sample the entire population over a long period of time, this graph would be a completely flat line of zero slope.

If one were to sample the voting population that votes Democratic at any given time the graph would be a bell curve left of center.

If one were to sample the voting population that votes Republican at any given time the graph would be a bell curve right of center.

If one were to sample the entire voting population that voted for Paul in 2012 the graph would be a flat line of zero slope almost right on the X axis but substantially (relatively) above the line that would reflect the 2008 sample.

This movement requires the line to be raised, not disfigured into a bell shape. Human nature would dictate that if the line begins to skew, people will simply gravitate to one of the existing bell curves and the movement will simply whither and die.

I don’t think the membership here on DP is lacking the concept of reason, but I think there is a radical distribution when it comes to faith.

The Rand Paul endorsement was a “light bulb” moment for me because I realized that I was solely relying on faith that Rand knows what he is doing and that he will carry the torch admirably. He has a limited voting record and there is somewhat of a mixed bag within his library of public statements when it comes to whether he is more status quo than liberty.

Equally, I would predict that those who are extremely critical of Rand tend to lack the ability of faith that his current backers possess and I don’t think they would consider that an insult and neither do I.

In time, reason will tell us where Rand stands.

In the mean time, the critics will continue to vet (which is a good thing).
And the supporters will continue to justify (which is a good thing).

BUT LET’S BE HONEST IN HOW WE FULLFILL OUR ROLES.

RAND IS NOT EVIL; AT LEAST THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT TO DATE.
RAND IS NOT DIVINE; THAT WOULD BE BLASPHAMOUS IN SOME MYSTIC CULTURES (including mine).

God Bless.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

COLOSSAL waste of time.

But don't stop thinking.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and

Sorry Rhino but,

titling threads with one's own name is soooo 2007.

your first sentence

... " the delegate fight is lost" indicates you are not only a defeatist loser piece of dogshit, you are even worse a believer in lies the "mainstream media" told you. Go back to your television, there is nothing for you here at Daily Paul...

BOYCOTT:

Monsanto
Merck
Phizer
Walmart
Microsoft
Google / YouTube
Facebook
Myspace
Yahoo
GoDaddy
FOXSNBCNNBBCPBSNPRABCBS and the rest of the scummy liar whore media fucks and all their bs

I have a T.V. ...

but I do not have cable and the only thing that plays on it are kid shows.

So try again.

I get you.

You are so lacking in your ability to rationally think that you rely on your two staples ... A.J. and stalking.

I have been there and done that so I am not trying to insult you, and it will take time, but eventually you will grow out of it as long as you are capable of intellectual growth.

You are the kind of person that probably thinks the moon landing was a fake. Am I right?

I pray for wisdom. That you are granted wisdom. I wish you well.

God Bless.

Strange definition of faith

to me. To me, faith is solid and sure. If one sees something happening over and over again, he may be inclined to trust that it will always (or almost always) happen this way. He develops a sureness about it. If he drinks a certain medicine and it makes the pain vanish, he begins to put a lot of faith in it. It's demonstrated.

I don't think faith and reason are at odds. Before Jesus (or Peter or Paul, etc.) performed a miracle, He wasn't unsure about it. He knew it was going to happen. For me, faith is the same as that. It's knowledge. Reason can operate in faith or outside of faith, for that matter.

This emotional, reality-twisting, "maybe" kind of faith is something I don't understand. It can be very imaginative and distorted by emotion. It's really "wishful thinking." Could you imagine Jesus suddenly joining the Pharisees and saying to his followers, "We have to play the game." Of course not. I know this analogy will break down at some point, but what I'm saying is that anyone can imagine something and have a mystical, subjective experience about it, and if not in the habit of suspending judgment until evidence comes to light, he can actually believe it. This is mysticism. This is the faith you seem to be describing.

John F

Maybe faith

I also am confused about Maybe faith. It encourages "blindness" and lemming behavior. That "faith" is dangerous and is fairly pervasive in society. Then again, maybe Maybe faith is the wrong name. Maybe it's blind faith, hopeful while ignorant? Either name, the results are sad.

How you understand faith is my understanding of it. Thanks for your comment, JF.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Small Sample Size

While I agree that the sample size is too small, I think that 19 responses is a good start, and I would say that your hypothesis does not agree with the results.

Of the people who claim to be religious, it was nearly an even split on whether or not they were ok with Rand Paul's endorsement (7 ok, 8 not ok). Of the people who claim to not be religious, only one followed your hypothesis by not being ok with the endorsement, while 3 went against your hypothesis by being ok with it. Overall, that means that 10 went against your hypothesis and 9 went with your hypothesis. I think that split implies (though doesn't prove) that there is no correlation between religiosity and our feelings on Rand's endorsement.

I think the flaw in your reasoning is linking religion with faith. Most people have faith in something, even if it's not God. Many atheists "believe" in unproven scientific theories, or at least in science that they personally have never seen the proof of. Or else they have faith in their partner's monogamy, or their parents' love, or the worthwhile-ness of a cause (like the Liberty Movement, or the Environment).

On the other hand, many religious people have no faith at all, either because they are functional deists who use God(s) as a lazy or convenient excuse to explain the origins of the universe but do not really internally believe He exists, or else because their religion is not really about faith at all (Buddhism). Although I would say that even these religious folks believe in something. It is nearly impossible to live life based only on what you know through personal evidence, and so it is natural to live by faith. In fact, even some cynics got to be that way because they have a personal belief that people cannot be trusted and the world is a disheartening and disappointing place. Many of the Rand detractors are probably that way because they have faith in their pet theory that Rand is doing something diabolical, "selling out" or whatever idea they've come up with, even though none of us has any shred of evidence of what is going on in Rand's head or heart except from the scant TV appearances.

And I will admit that I fall into the category of not being ok with Rand's endorsement, based on my belief of what he is doing. I'm just pointing out that faith can go both ways.

I think you are completely correct ...

But I still don't see how that disproves my theory.

I know my second question asked if people were religious, but I couldn't figure out another way of measuring their level of faith.

I wasn't trying to measure a religion/Rand correlation, but rather a faith/R3volution correlation.

My hypothesis is that we are the most diverse when it comes to political movements and that if we are to remain as a movement then we must maintain our diversity.

And then I added the caveat of maintaining civility while remaining diverse.

I completely agree.

You're right, I don't think anything I said disproves your theory concerning the diversity of our movement, the need to maintain that diversity, or the need to maintain civility. I think all of that is important to the movement.

I think instead of "flaw in your reasoning" I should have said the "flaw in your survey question," which you seem to agree with, so we're on the same page. I don't know how to measure someone's faith, so that's a tough bit of research to do on your part, and I sympathize with that.

I'm not sure that I necessarily agree that the general level of someone's faith correlates with this specific instance of being ok with Rand's decision to endorse Romney. I think a lot of cynics would be ok with Rand's decision because they always assume that people aren't saying what they mean and must have some ulterior motive, and so they believe Rand is playing the political game and, in this particular case, happen to agree with the end goal. They would be low faith, but ok with the endorsement. At the same time, someone might have a lot of faith in mankind or something bigger than Rand (such as God, or the Liberty Movement), and it is precisely because of that faith that Rand's endorsement would be a disappointment to them. The endorsement goes against the ideal they believed in (which is the category I fall into). So they would be high faith, but not ok with the endorsement.

My guess (and one I think you'd agree with) is that we in this movement are not easily lumped into groups or labels like "religious" or "faithful" (except to Liberty, of course), and so our justifications for our feelings concerning Rand Paul are as numerous as there are members on this forum. In spite of that (or maybe because of that), we must stick together for the cause of liberty.

bump for edits.

Rand stands for Romney and the RNC

Romney and the RNC will destroy Rand because Rand's principle is not that of John Galt, like his Dad, but James Taggart.

Wait, didnt you say you

Were going to vote for Romney in another thread? Yet you trash Rand for 'standing for Romney'...interesting bit of logic you have tangled up there. So just so I understand, you don't approve of Rands motive for endorsing Mittens,.but your motivation to vote for him is pure and therefore acceptable?

If Ron Paul does not get the nomination (and I pray he does)

That post I made was made back in June.

I had to THINK really hard, WHY WHY WHY??? HOW? How could Rand give a endorsement of any kind to Romney. I don't like Romney. Does he actually like Romney?

Meanwhile, being that I am on a central committee, and work with the campaign, which encouraged me to be on a central committee, the dots began to connect that all those papers I signed when I won my seat through defaut, bound me to Romney, and that Rand's announcment was leading us to what was very hard to do, but what was proper to do if we intend to keep our seats.

This stratigy is Ron Paul's. And he's correct. The HARD part is getting people to join the GOP and take a seat, which is such a shame because it's a HUGE opportunity, but it takes people who are not closed minded with lame excuses.

Majority of committees have all these open seats and MSM has brainwashed too many who spew MSM BS about the GOP rather than join and take it and make it our party.

So, yes, I was hurt and confused by Rand's endorsement. But I have come to accept that like his father, he is leading the rEVOLution by making aliences within the GOP where we can, since too many who LOVE Ron Paul won't do what he asked us ALL to do, get on a central committee.

Ahh

Didn't notice how old the post was. I happen to mostly agree with you on Rand though, despite my initial reaction.