5 votes

Rand > Ron

Hold a sec. Don't get your balls in an uproar.

*I revere everything about Ron Paul, and in ways that I doubt Rand can ever approach.*

What I mean by my subject heading is this:

When Ron first announced in '07 for the prez campaign, I was licking my chops. A libertarian would be on the national stage for such a campaign for the first time in at least decades, and the 18-month campaign would turn the media establishment and American culture on its head.

Issues like the Income Tax, War on Drugs, size, scope and role of government, etc. would FINALLY get an airing, and there'd be robust debate.

The liberal media would contort in fascinating and entertaining ways in response to a REPUBLICAN calling for an end to the Drug War and to a major scaling back in foreign intervention and military budgets.

The conservative media (such that it exists) would rally behind a TRUE champion of fiscal freedom.

The floodgates would open, hypocrisies revealed, phonies exposed, real debate and discussion commenced. It was to be CRAZY.

But, as we all know, thru two prez campaigns, Ron instead was overtly ignored. In the few instances he wasn't, he was ridiculed and marginalized. There would be no robust debate and discourse. Ron and his message were buried. It wasn't Ron's fault. The corruption and neglect was staggering and frustrating.

Fast forward to '13 and, for reasons I still can't completely wrap my head around, Rand is being treated differently by media, and this week's filibuster and aftermath has contained a greater volume of national, actual genuine debate and discussion on albeit the narrow issue of drones, and related civil liberties, then Ron was able to pull off over his two campaigns.

As a result of the filibuster, left media/politicians are attacking left media/politicians. Right media/politicians are attacking right media/politicians. It's great!

Of course Ron can take credit, perhaps even the lion's share. After all, Ron's '08 campaign is the reason Rand won his seat in '10. Ron *has* tweaked the culture, with no help from the media/political establishment, making the masses more receptive to Rand's message this week.

But my point is that Rand is sitting on a potential to stir the media/political establishment - which is how mass culture is changed - that Ron, for whatever reasons, did not possess.

This was confirmed in a big way this week, and the possibilities from here are endless.

Comment viewing options

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

Yes, as in democracy, not the

Yes, as in democracy, not the Democratic Party.

Paul supports the constitution, and the constitutional system of governance is a restrained, representative democracy.

Its Representative Republic

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

How are those representatives

How are those representatives chosen, who are they supposed to be beholden to? The people. Thus it is a democratic, representative republic, or, in other words, a "restrained, representative democracy".

Democracy is clearly a part of the US system.

The U.S. is a democracy the

The U.S. is a democracy the same way a glass of ice water is ice.
The U.S. incorporates representative democracy, but it is not a democracy. The U.S. is a republic composed of several republics.

Look through the Constitution for any mention of democracy.
You won't find it.
Now look for republic.

Read Federalist 10 and see what was thought of democracy. The founders were not in favor of democracy.

Yet they included democracy

Yet they included democracy as part of their mixed-system of government. Clearly, their actions speak louder than their words. You just said that "U.S. incorporates representative democracy". Apparently you don't disagree with me.

The U.S. is not a democracy

The U.S. is not a democracy merely because it incorporates democratic functions.
That's like saying that a car is an engine because it incorporates an engine. The U.S. is a republic. Go look up the definition of republic. Unlike with democracy, the U.S. perfectly fits the definition of a republic whereas it only partially fits the definition of a democracy. A republic and a representative democracy are similar, but not the same.

Federations have elections. Are they democracies? No.
Constitutional monarchies have elections. Are they democracies? No.
Sorry, but words have meanings. Just having elections is not the only qualifier for being 'a democracy.'
If all you were saying was that the U.S. has democratic processes, that's fine, but calling it a democracy due to that is inaccurate.

I said it was a "restrained,

I said it was a "restrained, representative democracy", which is true. It is restrained, by the constitution; the part that makes it a Republic. You don't get it do you? I'm saying the exact same thing that you are, except I'm saying it in a different manner. You are taking so much offense to the word "democracy" that you keep missing the qualifier, "restrained".

The adjective is irrelevant,

The adjective is irrelevant, you're using the wrong noun.

Same as a republic

A republic is just a smaller mob whose criminal insiders pretend to be philosopher kings. Plato was mostly a d-i-r-t-b-a-g.

Modern republics have nothing

Modern republics have nothing to do with Plato. The title of the work known today as "The Republic", would translate better as "The Constitution", and has very little to do with modern republics. The Republic has much more to do with the contents and arrangement of ones soul, ones inner constitution, the different sorts of inner constitutions, and how they effect the nature of the state.

Keep kidding yourself


I understand The Republic

I understand The Republic just fine, thanks. I don't agree with every thing Plato wrote, but there is much to be taken, with thanks, from him.

You do?

Then why are you misrepresenting the text, shadow-form-watcher?

Of course, perhaps after mankind has achieved perfection, there might be a place for your precious republic. What until then? More pretense and coercion?

Ironic that you call me a

Ironic that you call me a "shadow-form-watcher".

"Of course, perhaps after mankind has achieved perfection, there might be a place for your precious republic." That statement betrays your ignorance. Plato was speaking of a kingdom, not a Republic like we know them today. Further, the need for a king Plato postulated because of the imperfection of all men, and the inequality between them.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I appreciate your input

...if not the apparent appeals to absolutism.

Would that be Socratic irony? Ha. Was Socrates real, or merely that which the weakling Plato wished he had been able to become (i.e. a fearless seeker of truth even when facing execution)? I figure Plato was a lot like Marx: too clever by half, plus a hedonistic sponger who compensated for pangs of spongy guilt by submersing into Political Economy meta-fantasy (likely patronized as well by nudge nudge wink winks from the lines of the pretend dragon-bloods -- if you get my drift).

The Socratic/Platonic concept of the soul was a mental exercise tool, and "end of the soul equals life" stuff represents a kind of yin-yang assertion (I myself postulate that zero and infinity are the same number). Also, and to be brief & opinionated with a subject that actually does appear to be unknowable to the imperfect, "their" subjective concept of unknowable justice has inspired oodles of self-professed philosopher kings to claim an "ethical relativism exception" which magically (remember that word: magic) justifies their actions. You know, for the good of the so-called little people who are then "granted" all sorts of biased education and junk. In short, it has been used consistently as a generalized and grasping recipe for totalitarianism and slavery -- and the NWO appears to be a philosopher king wet dream.

It is, as you say, precisely because mankind is imperfect that a republic of one is impossible (the "sovereign individual" or "freeman on the land"). I am hip to the semantic jugglings of kingdoms and city states, to the pretense and the pageantry of certain cryptic pillows, and I grasp that no conceivable form of governance is justifiable while mankind remains imperfect. Only anarchy will suffice, all else I declare to be fraud.

Did you study this stuff in university? If so, consider unlearning that and starting over with Ancient Mysteries and ley lines and the aleph-bet and the trivium and the quadrivium. I can recommend Marshall McLuhan's book on the trivium.

Your entire first paragraph

Your entire first paragraph is fantasy. Pure fantasy born of your own imagination.

Your second paragraph oozes ignorance. The platonic soul, the three part soul, is described by Plato so it can be properly understood and ordered. It has nothing to so with the pseudo-intellectual nonsense you are blathering on about. The NWO has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, in fact it is much the opposite. The NWO is comprised of tyrants. Those who feel free, even to hurt others. Philosophy behaves entirely different to criminality. I'll admit that the elite are clearly using some philosophic understanding to propel themselves, but they have left out justice.

The idea that anarchy is a sustainable alternative, is a childish, utopian fantasy. You are "hip" to far less than you have brought yourself to believe.

Good joke

Keep on kidding yourself.

Or should I say: keep on pleasing your "non-philosophical" masters. Ha.

How, exactly, does philosophy "behave?" Ha.

This is an example of a trial baloon

It is released to see if there are going to be any significant gains from a carefully scripted grandstanding event.

The people at dailypaul.com are being used as a focus group for the worst thing imaginable: the marketization of a politician.

Political theater

This is being done to a large movement.. Testing, pushing, dodging then slamming. He had no substance in his words and in fact did damage to Liberty with his claptrap.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

You might be right

Thanks for the info. I try not to listen to the words of any politician, but your analysis of the SOP seems sound.

...And here come the DPers

...And here come the DPers with abandonment issues.

"My daddy wasn't there for me, and Rand will leave you too! Don't trust him, he'll hurt you! Waaaaaaa!"

Ron set up the pins..

...so Rand can knock em down! I have no doubt that Ron knew long ago that Rand was the one with the chance to break through. I'm willing to bet that Rand's amazing political skills are a result of many long talk with his father about what needs to be done in order to get Ron's message into the mainstream. Nothing I've seen from Rand makes me think he is not every bit the freedom lover that his dad is. As far as being a better "politician", basically, without Ron Paul fighting for 4 decades, Rand wouldn't be in the position he is in. Also, without Rand selecting his battles wisely (giving half hearted endorsment of Romney, voting for cabinet appointments we dont like) none of those neocons would have joined his filabuster, and Rush and Hannity wouldn't be singing his praises right now. Ron and Rand are a team. I have no doubt about it. Rand isn't any better than Ron, he is a product of Ron.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).


A well-stated elaboration of my original post.

Want to focus on the positive?

Check out this post, "Rand Paul: One person can make a difference"


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)


I hate to join the party poopers, but they're totally right. Anyone who had any political backbone or intellectual integrity, like Ron himself, is now gone.

The only people left here are the snakes and the compromisers, willing to play party politics, even at the cost of their own souls. Have fun with Rand, kids. Don't cry when he screws you.

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat

I love Ron to death and would

I love Ron to death and would follow him into hell but he has waged a war of ideas. Rand is trying to play the game. We are losing the game everyday and somebody needs to be playing on our behalf.

How's that old saying go?

The only way to win a rigged game is not to play. Or, at least, something along those lines. I think what we have here is a genuine ideological dispute. You seem to believe that your rights are granted to you by the state, and if that is indeed your belief, you would certainly need a Rand Paul fighting for you.

I, on the other hand, believe my rights come from Natural Law. The law that states so long as I am breathing, I have the inherent right to free will, provided I do not violate the non-aggression principle.

In other words, what happens on Capitol Hill will NEVER change the fact that I am a free individual. So I posit to you this question: If, by some chance, Rand fails in his "grand master political coup," will the fact that you, too, are a free individual change? Or will you continue to live your life as such in spite of the thugs in Washington? Food for thought.

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat

I must disagree.

Party politics? You mean like when Ron returned to the Republican party who betrayed him? Like when Ron works with snakes like Barney Frank, or when he endorsed Newt for speaker? Ron played party politics so that our movement could have a chance to be mainstream. I'm certain he raised his son with the same values he has, but with the knowledge that Rand could break through where Ron didn't, and bring the liberty message to vastly more people. If Rand screws us, then I will eat my words and be as sad and embarrassed as anyone, however, this sort of "Ron wasn't a politician" elitism is both unfounded and unproductive.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Ron never compromised the principles of Liberty

Rand making "acceptable" talk about drones bombing times square and your average robber is an affront to Constitutional Liberty.

Have you thought about who might be controlling the armed drones inside US borders to be able to bomb here? Does Posse Comitatus mean nothing to you or Rand?

Does due process get thrown out with it? That IS what he was calling for by making "acceptable" talk.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

You must not have listened...

...to his filabuster. He CONSTANTLY has said that the issue with drones abroad is debatable. Right now, most folks don't even know how drones are used overseas, so they don't know there is a problem. Rand obviously does and wants to bring up the issue, but it's not an issue any republican is concerned about, and liberals and the general population don't know about it. Rand used the domestic drone issue to begin the debate, and during his speech, he mentioned many times that our use of drones abroad should be debated. That is a debate nobody in DC is having, and Rand just put himself in the leadership position in the party, so when he starts that debate, he already has clout based off of his filabuster. You forget, Rand is a Senator, not a random dude complaining on the internet. If Rand had been raving about the drone use abroad, nobody would be listening to him right now.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).