20 votes

A Note on Rand, Playing Politics and Constitutional Arguments

After my article yesterday regarding Rand Paul's recent statements
regarding drug legalization, I received some criticism particularly over at the Daily Paul for coming down too hard on Rand. "After all", the argument goes,"he is just taking the Constitutional position and leaving it up to the states to decide. Rand is on our side".

To be clear, in the specific statements Paul made regarding drug legalization, there was no distinction between "federal" and "state" legalization of drugs. He simply stated that he "wasn't for that (legalizing heroin)." And yes, I am well aware that this is a more politically palatable position, as I've been reminded over and over, because Rand needs to do what he has to do to "win". This attitude implies that it's not ideas that are important, but political victory itself.

I believe this is the opposite of how politics should be viewed as a tool for advancing liberty. Political victory should come as a result of expressing the correct ideas about liberty. If liberty positions must be "muddled" and "filtered", what is gained by any victory? This is an example of the problem, as I've discussed before, with simply using Constitutional arguments when developing positions. If one simply relies on the Constitution for framing all of their arguments, one can quickly lose moral high ground in debate over an issue.

This is how libertarians get into trouble when they say things like "well, drug laws should be left to the States...that is what is Constitutional". But this is a backwards way to make an effective argument. Rather, it should be explained that it is wrong to use force on someone simply for putting a substance into their body. It should then be argued that federal drug laws should be repealed for this reason.

Continue Reading

Comment viewing options

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

What?

"Did the "majority" support that war? How do you know?"
-I don't know that. Perhaps it's not true, but the support by many was ridiculous. People parroted MSM about WMD's, saving women from the taliban, capturing bin laden, etc. I was only in highschool at the time, but people I listened to were letting it justify anything. I heard few voices of reason at the time and none that I recall calling it the propaganda it was.

"No. People are people, the look out for their own interests."
-Again with this Hobbesian nature of man crap. I don't buy it. Self interest is just one factor of motivation and I don't believe life ends up nasty, brutish or short just because I look out for my own interests. Most people are good. Timid, complacent, prejudice sure, but mostly good.

"Given absolute power, they will put that power to work for their own interests."
-That's what democracy limits. It's primary function is to displace worst forms of government. It requires a vigilant, informed and unapathetic electorate to be maintained, but this is a small price to pay to not be subjects of kings or oligarchs. We should pay it.

-I don't see the constitution as an obvious failure. It did protect most Americans for most of its 230+ years, and to some extent still does. Democracy may or may not force government back to constitutional adherence, but I see no other form of government likely to do it, nor another revolution that would turn out better than 1776.

The question for me.- The complete opposite. I fear the immorality of the people least of all. That's why we shouldn't forsake democracy. It IS the rule of the people. Slaves to the whims of the majority at times, but the people also want the rule of law and a constitution protecting individual freedoms. Tyrants want none of this. They would gladly settle with a constitutional republic defined by dictators and formulated to enslave.

"The humans given the power to rule over us are just as fallible and wicked as the rest of us."
- You betcha, but a democracy empowers the people to remove them peacefully as a first option.

"So why are you so eager for this system? It loots and kills. It does not protect you."
- Failed democracies loot and kill more and I don't expect protection from others, just the right to protect my self and equal protection under the law.

If you're suggesting anarchy, fine. I'm not there yet, and would prefer not to give up on democracy just because it looks a little bleak at the moment. Besides, I think the tide is changing.

>>>> Did the "majority"

>>>>
Did the "majority" support that war? How do you know?"
-I don't know that. Perhaps it's not true, but the support by many was ridiculous. People parroted MSM about WMD's, saving women from the taliban, capturing bin laden, etc. I was only in highschool at the time, but people I listened to were letting it justify anything. I heard few voices of reason at the time and none that I recall calling it the propaganda it was.<<<<

If you expect to hear reason or truth in the MSM you won't. They will not publicize any dissenting viewpoint, or if they do, simply marginalize it, as they did Ron Paul. The point is, they create their own reality, proclaim their "truth" via the MSM and it doesn't matter what most folks think or want. I don't believe the Kenyan was ever even elected. They simply said he won, and presto! reality is created. Last years Republican primary farce simply reinforced that.

>>>>>"No. People are people, the look out for their own interests."
-Again with this Hobbesian nature of man crap. I don't buy it.<<<<

Then you deny reality. People given absolute power will use it to serve their own interests. Now, I don't require you to believe that or agree with me at all. I have no desire to force my POV on you. But, I deny YOUR right to force a statist "democratic" scheme on me because I KNOW the nature of man. I am not Hobbesian because I include RULERS and people of the state in with the rest of humanity as far as being inclined to serve their own interests. State worshippers believe that humans who rule others are better, more noble, deserving of having a monopoly on force over their fellow men. Hobbes believed people must be ruled by their "betters". I do not. You do.

>>>> Self interest is just one factor of motivation and I don't believe life ends up nasty, brutish or short just because I look out for my own interests<<<<

???Neither do I.

>>>>>Most people are good. Timid, complacent, prejudice sure, but mostly good.<<<<

Bull. People are people. Some are good, some not so much, some think they are "good" but I would call them evil. Some that others call bad, I have no problem with at all. The point is, it doesn't matter either way as long as people don't weild absolute power over anyone else. The statists are always trying to make us "good", end "hate", end "prejudice", force us to love people we don't have anything in common with or understand,force us to slave to provide for the desires of those they deem more "worthy".

>>>>>"Given absolute power, they will put that power to work for their own interests."
-That's what democracy limits.<<<

ROFLMAO!!!!! Yeah, riiigghhht!! Sorry, I don't see "democracy" limiting anything but liberty and rights.

>>>> It's primary function is to displace worst forms of government.<<<

Now that is a definition I have NEVER heard or read before. And since democracy IS one of the worst forms of statism that's not saying much.

>>>> It requires a vigilant, informed and unapathetic electorate to be maintained, but this is a small price to pay to not be subjects of kings or oligarchs. We should pay it.<<<<

Got a mouse in your pocket??? YOU should "pay it" if YOU want to be ruled by the mob but leave me out of your happy little collective, thank you. I was wondering how long it would take you to start mouthing the "blame the victim" excuses for the abuses of the democratic state. "WE" weren't "vigilant" enough, it is "OUR" fault we have been looted, enslaved, sold out, tyrannized. "WE" should have ignored the vast state apparatus and its police, secret agencies, and military and "stopped" them, gotten "involved", elected "good" crooks, blah, blah. How selfish of "US" to simply want to live our own lives, be left alone. "WE" have to spend our lives being "vigilant" over those with absolute power and unlimited wealth to use against us. Shame on "us" for blaming the poor democratic state tyrants. What did "we" expect??

>>>>-I don't see the constitution as an obvious failure.<<<

Then you are blind/in denial.

>>>>>It did protect most Americans for most of its 230+ years, and to some extent still does. <<<

LOL! How does it protect anyone but the state?It didn't protect the frontier whiskey producers of PA. It didn't protect the Southern states from attack, it hasn't protected thousands from civil forfeiture, incarceration for simply trading and taking whatever drugs or foods they want. It didn't protect Randy Weaver, the Branch Davidians, Ron Paul...do you really believe it protects anyone???

>>>Democracy may or may not force government back to constitutional adherence, but I see no other form of government likely to do it, nor another revolution that would turn out better than 1776. <<<

Again, if you want to live under democratic tyranny I believe you have that right. Just contract with other like minded commies and hand yourselves over to "leaders" who will gladly loot you.

>>>>The question for me.- The complete opposite. I fear the immorality of the people least of all. That's why we shouldn't forsake democracy. It IS the rule of the people.<<<<

Rule of the MAJORITY of people...when the state isn't simply ignoring them and doing what they want anyway, which they inevitably do. Again, YOU are welcome to it.

>>>> Slaves to the whims of the majority at times, but the people also want the rule of law and a constitution protecting individual freedoms.<<<<<

Now this is interesting. You KNOW what "the people" want. You are amazingly all knowing. I am a "people" and I don't want that madness and I know there are others like me. And we will be tyrannized by YOUR state inevitably because of your illogical denial of facts and history.

>>>>> Tyrants want none of this.<<<

And you do not understand the nature of tyrants. They go where they can get absolute power over others: a democratic state. Hayek expalined it in "The Road to Serfdom". The worst inevitably rise to the top in the state because only they will do anything to get that power. Good people, like Ron Paul, won't.

>>>>> They would gladly settle with a constitutional republic defined by dictators and formulated to enslave. <<<<

So you prefer to be tyrannized by the mob than by a few or one tyrant. Interesting.

>>>>>"The humans given the power to rule over us are just as fallible and wicked as the rest of us."
- You betcha, but a democracy empowers the people to remove them peacefully as a first option.<<<<<<

Empowers the people?? Nonsense. The people have ZERO power in statism.

>>>>>So why are you so eager for this system? It loots and kills. It does not protect you."
- Failed democracies loot and kill more and I don't expect protection from others, just the right to protect my self and equal protection under the law.<<<<

Let us know how that works out for you, LOL! You will not have equal protection under the law if you are in the minority OR majority under democracy...assuming the state would even honor the wishes of the majority. They sure didn't with the bailouts.

>>>>>>If you're suggesting anarchy, fine. I'm not there yet, and would prefer not to give up on democracy just because it looks a little bleak at the moment. Besides, I think the tide is changing.<<<<

Rothbardian anarcho capitalism, to be exact. Anything else is immoral and tyranny.

What is your suggestion then?

You seem to only have negatives but no solutions. Sitting back and taking it isn't going to help you or anyone affected by the government monopoly that currently imposes their rules onto us unless we legislatively fight back against their rules. That is the system we have right now.
You think people are going to wake up one day, soon hopefully and say they aren't voting for two sides of the same coin, and end the voting system or start over? If that was ever the case, I shouldn't be seeing all these Obama stickers still on the back of people's cars as if they want him to be our dictator for the rest of our lives.

The real logical solution in reality, is to infiltrate and take over their game. Put our people in, and take over. Apathy does nothing, but let people continue to be zombies.

¶~~*~~Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~Ludwig Börne~~*~~¶

>>>>You seem to only have

>>>>You seem to only have negatives but no solutions.<<<<

No. I simply don't agree with YOUR "solution". which is to continue with a Panglossian denial that there is anything better than statism.

>>>>Sitting back and taking it isn't going to help you or anyone affected by the government monopoly that currently imposes their rules onto us unless we legislatively fight back against their rules. That is the system we have right now.<<<<<

Legislatively fight back??? So how's that working out for you? The ones who "win" are the ones who play ball. Oh, they might play the "conservative" role for a while but when it gets down to it they all go along with the plans of TPTB and shove more wars and bailouts, tyrannical legislation and wealth confiscation down our throats.

>>>> You think people are going to wake up one day, soon hopefully and say they aren't voting for two sides of the same coin, and end the voting system or start over? If that was ever the case, I shouldn't be seeing all these Obama stickers still on the back of people's cars as if they want him to be our dictator for the rest of our lives.<<<<

Like it or not, most people are stupid, played for fools with bread and circuses. They want that free lunch and have been told they are entitled to it and that other people should work so they can have it. This is the result of state schooling, state social engineering via laws and regulations, state enforcement. As the parasitic state kills their productive hosts, their voting blocs will not understand why they are not getting their welfare, food stamps, ADC.

>>>>The real logical solution in reality, is to infiltrate and take over their game. Put our people in, and take over.<<<<

YOUR people??? Excuse me, but I do not want to be looted by YOUR people any more than THEIR people. YOUR people are just people, they are not more noble, moral, etc. You are like Granger, salivating at the possibility of getting a turn at the ring of power to cram YOUR will on us.

>>>>Apathy does nothing, but let people continue to be zombies.<<<<

Being in a position to do little, being forced to bide ones time is not "apathy", although it is useful propaganda to claim it is. But it is still a lie, an ad hominem. Christians held their services in catacombs during times of Roman persecution. Were they "apathetic"? Was Catholic Shakespeare "apathetic" when he couched so much of his political commentary in a remote historical context to avoid the wrath of the Anglican monarch? We are enslaved, persecuted. You suffer under the delusion that "we are the government". You need to recover from your government skooling.

I pity your outlook. You

I pity your outlook. You still have yet to bring a solution, except for sitting back and taking it. All you did was complain and complain. And if I wanted to rule your life, I would be running for office(I instead support and help others who are running), but you are just at it like a troll. Accusing and accusing without any substance. Talk about 'ad hominems'. Haha

You may be from some other state other than Nevada, because we here in Nevada did wonderful in taking over our local office. It took a few years, but that's the way it is. It took decades/generations for the government to pass NDAA with the public looking the other way. I'm sure they were hoping enough of our grandparents who fought in WWII under the guise of beating Nazis had passed away, because if that generation were still around they wouldn't be rolling over and taking it up the a$$ like you're suggesting.

¶~~*~~Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~Ludwig Börne~~*~~¶

LOL!

>>>
I pity your outlook. You still have yet to bring a solution, except for sitting back and taking it. All you did was complain and complain.<<<<

No. I explained my position with logic and you fail to address the points I made. You attempt to marginalize my points that you cannot refute by dismissing them as "complaining".

>>>And if I wanted to rule your life, I would be running for office(I instead support and help others who are running),<<<

And the difference is...?????

>>>> but you are just at it like a troll. Accusing and accusing without any substance. Talk about 'ad hominems'. Haha <<<<

Again, you do not refute the specific points I made, you attempt to marginalize me by calling me a troll. And yes, that is ad hominem.

>>>>>may be from some other state other than Nevada, because we here in Nevada did wonderful in taking over our local office. It took a few years, but that's the way it is.<<<<<

And the people of Nevada can trust that your people are without sin, not subject to temptation and will not loot and tyrannize them. Sorry, Ron Paul is one in a million. I don't need "leaders". Now, if you do, you should be allowed to contract with these leaders to run your life for you. Me, I've seen how it works and I'll pass.

>>>>>It took decades/generations for the government to pass NDAA with the public looking the other way<<<<<

Well, that is the official version. Personally, I think there was plenty of opposition but that does not matter to the state class, any more than it mattered with the bailouts. Because they do not work for us.

>>>>>I'm sure they were hoping enough of our grandparents who fought in WWII under the guise of beating Nazis had passed away, because if that generation were still around they wouldn't be rolling over and taking it up the a$$ like you're suggesting.<<<

Please show where I suggested any such thing. If you cannot I expect an apology and retraction. Again, those who want to live with a state apparatus running their lives should absolutely have that right. They have no right to rule those who do not consent to such rule, however.

There you go accusing and

There you go accusing and accusing with NO substance. Who says I want to bear the responsibility of running your life? Government is NOT meant to run our lives. That being said, Ron Paul always said he wanted to get in and abolish the Federal Government! Are you forgetting that? That is the goal! Abolish it!

The reality is that not everyone gets the pleasure of acting like you SAY you would on the internet, 'I don't consent' BS. You see and hear over and over, people get railroaded even when they have video evidence of their rights being violated. Good luck in getting the judges to actually listen to your case and not throw the book at you. Other than that I'd like to abolish the whole system, but you can't expect the rest of the people to wake up and say "I don't want Government anymore," or have the balls to say "I don't consent," then proceed to get their a$$ beaten for not showing an ID. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in my lifetime unless someone gets in and gets rid of it within like Ron Paul said or if there's a rude awakening.

¶~~*~~Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~Ludwig Börne~~*~~¶

>>>> There you go accusing

>>>>
There you go accusing and accusing with NO substance. Who says I want to bear the responsibility of running your life? Government is NOT meant to run our lives. That being said, Ron Paul always said he wanted to get in and abolish the Federal Government! Are you forgetting that? That is the goal! Abolish it!<<<<<<

I do agree that controlling a smaller state is easier than a large one but I don't see the need for it at all. Statism is tyranny. I don't know any man I want running my life. You like the Nevada politicians and think they would be fine and dandy running things. I absolutely think if YOU want those pols ruling you you should contract for it and leave the rest of us out of it (those in Nevada wh do not state worship).

>>>The reality is that not everyone gets the pleasure of acting like you SAY you would on the internet, 'I don't consent' BS. You see and hear over and over, people get railroaded even when they have video evidence of their rights being violated. Good luck in getting the judges to actually listen to your case and not throw the book at you.<<<

LOL! So what? They ignore our rights anyway. So I should pretend that they have the right to do it and that I am not enslaved, that I agree to it and participate in it??? That doesn't even make sense. Far better to just make the separation: they are tyrants and I am tyrannized. I had nothing to do with the making of this system. When I tried to right some wrongs I saw first hand how they deal with "troublemakers" on just the county level...and that was pretty much how they treated Dr Paul. So, no. It's a scam and I want no part of it. Once enough people wise up and withdraw consent, stop participating new processes will take the place of the state because it will be seen for what it is.

>>>>> Other than that I'd like to abolish the whole system, but you can't expect the rest of the people to wake up and say "I don't want Government anymore," or have the balls to say "I don't consent," then proceed to get their a$$ beaten for not showing an ID. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in my lifetime unless someone gets in and gets rid of it within like Ron Paul said or if there's a rude awakening<<<<

Getting your a$$ beaten?? By our glorious state? I'm shocked. You must not be believing hard enough, not electing good enough crooks, LOL!

Very contradicting, when you justify a King

Justifying having a king or king's taxes, merits your writings MOOT.

"It is a point of pride to a monarch to expand and enrich his or her kingdom to leave for his heir." "We are taxed far more than King George dreamed of taxing the colonists." Submitted by AllPaul on Sun, 05/19/2013 - 10:48

NONSENSE

Pay attention to the context. I was rebutting an apologetic for democratic statism. All statism is tyranny. Some is worse than others.

One thing I did notice at the

One thing I did notice at the conventions was the lack of Parlimentarians to enforce and protect the Robert's Rules of Order.

People have got to be schooled in law. We need to start hitting the law books or we'll be legislated right out of our free wills.

¶~~*~~Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~Ludwig Börne~~*~~¶

Uh, did you also

notice that they simply lied and said that Bachmann, and then Frothy, won Iowa? Did you notice that they kidnapped delegates and drove them around so they would miss votes? That they ignored oral votes at the convention and simply announced their own pre-arranged results? That they broke bones, closed down primaries, flipped votes? Yeah, Roberts Rules of order are what "we" need to "fix" a corrupt system controlled by crooks who play by NO rules.PEOPLE!! You SAW the system in action. What makes you think it will be any different "next time"??

Dont forget the swat team, helicopter

and droves of police cruisers in Charleston. Do you think the PTB can keep that level of pressure up without blowback, so to speak, escalating? They're making dedicated freedom lovers out of this and it's expensive.

Kill Apathy

It took many decades for the system to get to the point where they are comfortable with breaking their own rules right in front of us. It's going to take quite a few years to undo what they have made everyone become accustomed to, apathy. People who have not tried or dived into their local parties don't know how easy it is, but it takes knowledge.

I went to the Oath Keepers meeting last year, and every candidate had a spokesperson to lobby us. When Bob Beers stood up and spoke as Gingrich's spokesman, all he did was talk about how we shouldn't vote for Ron Paul. This guy came off as a complete dunce, he could barely finish his sentences as he was searching for what to say, and he served in the NV senate and as councilman currently. As a kid I grew up seeing his name all over my neighborhood since he was in the NV legislature since 1998. That meeting made me realize these are just regular people who got involved.
If it wasn't for Ron Paul killing my apathy, I would've never known how easy it was to run our local parties, meanwhile we let these old turds who don't know any better than us run our lives.

¶~~*~~Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~Ludwig Börne~~*~~¶

Your use

of the term "apathy" is exactly what the Neocons do when they call Ron Paul an "isolationist". It is a deliberate mischaraterization of my position. Because I decline to participate in my own enslavement, you proclaim me "apathetic".

>>>>It took many decades for the system to get to the point where they are comfortable with breaking their own rules right in front of us. It's going to take quite a few years to undo what they have made everyone become accustomed to, apathy. People who have not tried or dived into their local parties don't know how easy it is, but it takes knowledge.<<<<

Been there, done that. LOL! You go right ahead. I know the system will not be changed from within. They have ways of dealing with that. I truly do wish you well. However, I still deny your right to force your crooked mess on those who do not consent to ber ruled by you.

>>>>>I went to the Oath Keepers meeting last year, and every candidate had a spokesperson to lobby us. When Bob Beers stood up and spoke as Gingrich's spokesman, all he did was talk about how we shouldn't vote for Ron Paul. This guy came off as a complete dunce, he could barely finish his sentences as he was searching for what to say, and he served in the NV senate and as councilman currently. As a kid I grew up seeing his name all over my neighborhood since he was in the NV legislature since 1998. That meeting made me realize these are just regular people who got involved.
If it wasn't for Ron Paul killing my apathy, I would've never known how easy it was to run our local parties, meanwhile we let these old turds who don't know any better than us run our lives.<<<<<

But why should I trust you, or any man, to run my life??

Well, I can tell we sure don't see eye to eye

here but I think I don't disagree with most of your sentiments. Apathy has been used as a characterization to drum up shallow support for mainstream politicians and it is very much a rigged system. But, I'm starting to see the puppet's strings and I think I'd like to cut a few of them if I can. Best of luck to you. If you change your mind about democracy, maybe try the other end of it and run for office. Given your stance, you're probably the right person to be there.

Your article makes it sound

Your article makes it sound as if Rand should first convince the masses to take the libertarian position, and then, the law/government/enforcement will follow. Your premise is flawed my friend.

For instance, I'd say damn near close to 100% of non-government employed Americans would agree that the IRS should be abolished. According to your premise, because the majority of the population agrees with the "right" position, the IRS would have already been gone. unfortunately, that is not reality.

Our republic is so far gone that the grip of the moneyed interests (IRS, DEA, the Fed, and the Military-Medical-Education-Financial-Industrial-Complex) must be dismantled from within. In order to fix the government, we must become the government.

Evangelicals are not going to vote for someone with Ron Paul's stances, they have proven that overwhelmingly in the last two primaries. What exactly is the point of Rand repeating identically what Ron did? Especially since Ron is still doing his thing and not running for president.

You basically want a politician who is not a politician. You want Ron Paul. Fine. He didn't win, he will never win. He wasn't trying to win. If you can't see that you are blind. If you want someone to act like Ron Paul and run for President, why don't you go out and do it?

Rand wants to win. And every thing he says and does is aimed at that end. It is the definition of politics.

Let me ask you this, which scenario is more likely to happen:
a) The DEA is suddenly abolished and all drugs are made legal by a single politician's say-so.
Or
b) Mandatory sentencing is reformed, some states legalize MJ and hemp and they flourish, the rest of the country takes notice, attitudes change, most prohibition of substances ends.

You seem to be in the camp of "A" while the rest of us in the real world are going with "B".

By the way, have you written any articles on Rand's legislation of reforming mandatory drug sentences or legalizing hemp?

I don't believe

I don't believe it is feasible, practical moral to think people can be tricked into supporting the right policies. People must be educated and learn what is right.

If you think the majority do not support the income tax, I would invite you to come hang out in SoCal for a few days.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

I live in Manhattan Beach.

I live in Manhattan Beach. It's all in how you pose the question. If you ask, are you in favor of Abolishing the IRS, I agree, you probably will get a lot different answer than if you ask: "if you could "get away with" paying no income tax, would you do it?" This is basically a work around to liberal programming, but I challenge anyone to spend a day asking people the second question and see what the results are.

Also, as I mentioned above, I am referring to people who actually pay, and are not on the government dole.

where the hell did you get those statistics?

Most people are opposed to abolishing the IRS. Show me a poll that says otherwise.

No, brother, it is not camp A or camp B. It is always, everywhere, striving for camp A, while supporting the efforts of camp B.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I invite you to do your own

I invite you to do your own poll. Go around for a day and ask people if they could get away with not paying the income tax if they would do it. Let me know what the results are.

Also, camp A has gone absolutely no where in the past 100 years, while camp B has achieved leaps and bounds in just the last few years.

Sorry to burst your bubble,

but most people support the IRS. The typical answer is that they don't like to pay taxes, but they feel that the income tax is necessary to run the govt.

Also, if it weren't for camp A, you probably would never have heard of the ideas of liberty and neither would have Ron Paul. This web site would not exist either. So don't claim that camp A has gone nowhere. Success is not measured by political power, unless you are a statist. Success is measured by the growth of ideas, and our ideas are growing. We need people to understand and grasp these ideas in their hearts, rather than just get them to pull a lever because they had some good feelings about what some politician said.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I agree the ideas are

I agree the ideas are spreading and growing. Ron Paul did that more than anyone.

My point is that more needs to happen in order for actual change to occur. Acting like Ron Paul, being a purist, and only worrying about spreading the message, is not going to get anyone elected to President. It didn't in 88 or 08 or 12.

Libertarians, by definition do not want to have power over other people's lives. What makes you think that any true Libertarian will EVER be elected to President, it seems quite oxymoronic.

Also, I stand by the belief that the majority of Americans would support not paying the income tax if they had a choice.

Income tax

A majority may not want to pay, but a majority certainly supports its EXISTENCE, it is completely accepted as a necessary matter-of-fact in our lives, and I've encountered very little resistance to this notion.

Sure, nobody wants to pay, but that's a far cry from being "against" it.

I used to live in Manhattan Beach, only recently moved a tick north to Mar Vista.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

we've got to get rid of the

we've got to get rid of the income tax. It's too complicated and burdensome.

Give me control of the US budget and I'll show you how to run a country on a few hundred billion....or less.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

BINGO

How hard is this to understand?

But let's not forget Ron did play politics, just no where near as far as Rand did.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

A lot of people want their government to dictate morality for

them. Everybody Wants To Rule The World the song tells us - even hippies and pacifists.

Pandas can't drive.

When they want the government to dictate morality for OTHERS

is how the problems start.

Right. Jobs with power attached to them are easy to fill.

There are more than enough people who fantasize about filling a uniform with a nice shiny nametag...

Pandas can't drive.

It takes salt and pepper

"This attitude implies that it's not ideas that are important, but political victory itself."

It's both. The fruition of a successfully spread idea is a political victory. Spreading ideas is important, and so is winning elections. I hope to see the Paul's accomplishing both.