-25 votes

The Inconsistent Logic of Matt Larson Regarding Ron Paul and Gary Johnson

Many passionate Ron Paul supporters are guided by their emotions for the good doctor. A good example is the unqualified disdain for Libertarian POTUS Candidate - Gary Johnson.

One of the guiding influences in Ron Paul's life was Ayn Rand - creator of Objectivism. Objectivism professes that logic and reason are Man's only reliable guide to interact with objective reality.

It troubles me that some Paulites choose solely to listen to Ron Paul without exploring the foundation of his thought processes. Where will these type of folks get their opinions when something new arises, and Ron Paul is no longer there to steer them? The formulation of such opinions can only be reliable through the use of reason and logic.

Emotions and faith are NOT reliable guides to reality.

I hope widespread self-education begins soon within the Liberty Movement. Our long-term success depends on it.

A video released on 9/2/12 by Matt Larson provides a good example of the inconsistent logic that I often witness with respect to fighters for liberty.

Here is a video that I prepared to clearly demonstrate this point:


Here is the original video uploaded to YouTube by Matt Larson:


Comment viewing options

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

There is no such ting as real logic

All reasoning is subjective as we all only have our own abilities and our own filters or experiences.

Believing in logic and reasoning or science or whatever right brain activity we may choose is just another form of faith and belief.

Some people know they are believers and some people think they are non-believers or "logical". The second group are only less aware of how their minds play tricks on them.


“The Lawyers For Ron Paul Have Tentatively
Won The Lawsuit Against The RNC!!!”

– Matt Larson on August 16, 2012 (Link)

…‘nuff said.


great job


Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY

I have not watched

your videos but will bookmark and consider your view. For the record I am not a Libertarian, I consider myself an Independent. I do not like belonging to parties or clicks, as soon as a person joins they turn over their own control and submit to the group.

I would prefer that parties be abolished and people step forward and present their views and record, I don't think the elite would like this as they would lose control.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

I agree that parties should be abolished...

However, we won't accomplish that before November for sure.

Thanks for your consideration.

If nothing else, I'm happy that this post inspired - more or less - some logical debate.

What do you hope to accomplish

in November? Do think Johnson the Libertarian can be elected? If you do then you must believe that our votes count, this could be where we differ because I think they can make the votes say whatever they want.
Hence, my decision to NOT vote and expel the illusion that voting makes a difference.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

If Johnson gets 5% of the vote nationally..

the Libertarian Party will be considered a major party in 2016 and puts them on the same footing as the Democrats and Republicans with respect to federal funds.

This is VERY achievable.

My reason for creating this post was to...

encourage people to make decisions founded in rational consideration of reality.

According to the downvotes, I have largely failed at that purpose.

Many of you will not vote for Johnson simply because of your dislike for people that post in favor of him on your favorite libertarian website. That is an irrational, emotional decision since it does nothing to promote liberty in any real way.

Secondly, many of you will write-in Ron Paul rather than voting Johnson simply because you disagree with him on one or two issues. That is also irrational in the sense that it has no chance of promoting liberty in any real way.

On the other hand, if Johnson were just to receive 5% of the national vote, the Libertarian Party would be considered a major party and would be put on an equal footing with Republicans and Democrats with respect to federal funds. This is a very rational and achievable reason to vote for Gary Johnson.

All good.

I think possibly you under estimate your fellow RP'ers, as possibly you may under estimate your own abilities. Your follow up posts have made your intentions clear, and I don't think your explanations have been lost on anyone..

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Ron Paul is not an objectivist


“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

I didn't say he was. I said...

that Ayn Rand has been an influence on his personal philosophy.



"Emotions and faith are NOT reliable guides to reality."

I beg to differ:

Without emotion, heart-felt desire and determination can not occur.

Without faith, be it religious or *otherwise*, there is no hope. Hope is what corruption fears most.

In my successes throughout my life, I have fully employed both of the above.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

How many times have your emotions betrayed you?

How many times have got angry and did something you regretted and wished you would have first rationally considered the consequences?

Do you make judgements purely based on emotions and faith? Or, do you also consider the logical consequences when acting?

If so, you support the conclusion that emotions and logic aren't a reliable guide to decision making - that logic is necessary - that logic is the only reliable guide.

You are splitting hairs.

I never claimed to not use logic/critical thinking.

I have made a few errors in my life. But those errors have taught me school of hard knocks.

I have also learned that following my gut has mostly never failed me. Intuition, basic primal instinct, should typically not be ignored.

What I have also learned in life, and what is important here, is that without trying, one will never achieve. Hopes and dreams usually come when least expected. Not that they always do.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I'm not splitting hairs...

Rational thought is always superior to emotion and faith in decision making processes.

Instincts and gut feelings are only reliable when reason supports them. One should still turn to logic to consider the consequences of the decision.

Obviously, a person can be put into a situation where immediate action is required where there is little or no time to rationally consider the scenario. However, there is no guarantee that the immediate action chosen will be the most correct choice in a rational sense; one has to hope that it is in such an instance, but that necessarily means that instinctual action is not as reliable as rational judgement.

It is my strongest hope that Ron Paul does all three of the

following on Tuesday night. But if he can't do all three that he does even two or one of these things.

#1. Agrees to be Johnson's VP choice.
#2. Endorses Gary Johnson (exclusive to any other candidate).
#3. DISCOURAGES his followers from writing his name in.

Please Ron do as many as you can - preferably all three but even two or one.

It's stunning to me...

that some "libertarian" people hold Matt Larson in higher regard than Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard.

I'm down-voting this

Why? Because I believe the post has been based on a false premise, and serves no relevant purpose.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

The relevant purpose is to have those that are guided...

by emotional attachment to Ron Paul to consider a rational point of view.

How many people here can give a rational explanation of how writing-in Ron Paul rather than voting for a candidate that is actually on the ballot is based on logic that would provide the Liberty Movement with real progress?

No rational explanation exists.

The post above

you made in response to my comment, in my view, has more relevance than your OP.
Fact is, in one sentence, you have possibly made someone reconsider their intentions to do exactly that, if in fact your are correct in your assumption that it is the result of an emotional response. You are also perfectly correct, a wasted vote is of no consequence, but ultimately the decision lies with the individual.
Information, advice and logic create better decisions.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

sharkhearted's picture

Agreed 100%


Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

sharkhearted's picture

The author of this forum fails to demonstrate his thesis

Sure, Mat's video was unscripted, conversational, and maybe lacking the proper semantics.

But the closest thing that I could find in your accusation is that he used the word "beliefs".

"Beliefs" in its use here CLEARLY does not imply "faith."

He was talking about "positions" on the platform.

You fail to demonstrate anything here and stuff like this is a distraction.

I'm with Mat and Evan, and anyone else out there in the grassroots as we are going to try and lobby Dr. Paul to consider 3rd party.

I remember a while back that the only way the good Doctor would consider third party was if there was a looming international crisis.

Well...it is looming...and with the coming government bubble bust and the potential collapse of the dollar...Ron Paul is just about the only man I would trust at the helm of the presidency during that time!

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Matt essentially said...

"I agree with Gary Johnson 90%+ on the issues, but I can't vote for him because of my attachment to Ron Paul and/or my disagreement with the remaining 10% of the issues."

Regardless, those reasons are not rational towards the goals of the Liberty Movement and are very likely based on emotion.

The goals of the Liberty Movement involve gaining more liberty. How does writing-in Ron Paul provide logical & rational progress towards achieving those goals?

It doesn't and, therefore, is an irrational solution that has no practical value.

Matt's logic was certainly inconsistent...

He said that he would write-in Ron Paul because "he needs Ron Paul in office to spread the message" (paraphrasing). Then, he went on to say that their was no way Ron Paul would be president.

sharkhearted's picture

No it most certainly wasn't. Yours IS, however.

You are conflating different things that he was saying.

He was saying that Dr. Paul could not run third party on his own because it was too late to do so.

However, he COULD run on a VP on the Libertarian ticket.

So...having him as VP and thus "in office"...shows no break in logic whatsoever.

You might want to consider spending asmuch time and energy as trying to lobby Dr. Paul to do this (run 3rd party)...rather than sit around and make pot shots about others' "faulty" logic.

This whole forum is a waste of time and a distraction

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

I think the "lobbying" will stop tomorrow...

after Dr. Paul appears on Leno.

Although there is an outside chance Ron Paul would accept to be the VP, I doubt he will go that direction. I hope he does because it would immediately give the LP ticket much greater viability, but regardless, what I say on here is not likely going to affect Ron Paul's decision.

Rationally, I think the most probable statement regarding the LP ticket to come from Ron Paul on Leno tomorrow would be an endorsement. That's not saying that is going to happen either.

Exact quote...

"I'm writing in Ron Paul because I need him to get into office to convey his message."

How does one take that out of context. His statement implies that a write-in could lead to Ron Paul getting into office. This is irrational.

He goes on to say that the chance of Ron Paul being president is "done." Obviously, this implies that a write-in has no chance of electing Ron Paul which contradicts his previous statement.

circular reasoning at its best.

I especially love how the poster took such generous liberty constructing this circular fallacy. My favorite line is "one of the greatest influences in Ron Paul's life SEEMS to have been Ayn Rand". Based on this the poster has concluded that Paul is an objectivist and his supporters are therefore required to share that same philosophy and vote accordingly.


Notice the glaring absence of any mention of individualism in this post. These gj staffers have become desperate in their attempts to get Paul supporters to take the bait. We ain't biting.

I intentionally used the word "seems" but...

I didn't have to.

Here is a video where Ron Paul says that Ayn Rand "had a lot of influence on me." However, he points out that he disagrees with Ayn's desire for militarism with respect to certain issues (Middle East), while Paul says "today Objectivists are much more solid."


So, I didn't have to use the word "seems."