Ron Paul Revolution Post Mortem

is a Republican.

In the end, the only hope that libertarianism has, according to this sanctimonious author, is if we all lead moral lives of integrity as, presumably, the author does.

Ron Paul is evaluated only as a libertarian of the author's mold but Ron Paul is also a constitutionalist. The author dismisses the Constitution and must therefore dismiss many of Ron Paul's positions - a couple of which he had wrong anyway or had nothing to do with Ron Paul's political positions.

The author also dismisses the MSM's role in the overall presidential campaign. After January 1, there was a virtual media blackout on Ron Paul. He was not allowed into the Fox New Hampshire debate just prior to the New Hampshire primary.

I share the author's opinion that Americans are not attracted to libertarianism but his dismissal of the Ron Paul movement is based on false premises.

if that is libertarianism, then let's try something different.

Not that I have a big problem with shunning those you decide are "evil" or that I have a problem with this guy shunning those he decides are "evil." More power to him.

But the problem with his overall approach is that it is based on the presumption that he has access to absolute truth, and everybody should be forced to accept his notion of consistency. That part is just nonsense.

And our founders had the humility and good sense to realize this and suggest something to us that was different and that was (on the face of it) very practical. They, of course, didn't know if it would work---the basic idea of a national government relying on a *large* component of self government. And it didn't work in the sense that it didn't preserve itself.

But the idea that government is a practical temporary framework not based on some notion of absolute truth, but relying on some "useful general ideas," albeit not absolutely true ones, like "all men are created equal" and "all people have inalienable rights," is a very interesting idea, and one that showed great promise of working rather well.

I could give Molyneux that Ron Paul is somewhat inconsistent concerning the military. But I would argue that the answer is not "privatization" either, if that is the "libertarian solution." I would suggest rather the idea of the founders again: No national military is needed except in time of (declared) war.

But, then I suppose there is no reason to believe Molyneux should understand such things, but we *should* think in terms of waking up some Americans (of the united States) to understand them. He has a point that we've not been so successful so far, but there are many like me for whom this is a totally new idea---not the ideas of the founders, but that anyone might take them seriously. It's been lost for generations. But it could be worth giving a chance, before we bury it.

And as I said long ago, and I'll say again, if you can only base your participation on some idea of absolute truth, whether it's that your god must dictate the rules of government for everyone or that your denial of any god's existence must dictate government for everyone, that your god created the universe or that "there can be no revolution without evolution," then you're not going to be of much practical help to anyone. You'll be like Molyneux.

The r3VOLution is just getting started!! That said, he does say that Dr. Paul is the ONLY credible candidate the Repubs is likely have in the coming generation.

Pat

BOHICA!!

A critical thought ...

The only ethical decision is one made based on survival ...

If the world in which we live was absent of any government ...

Then the decisions we make would be consistent ...

and in line with the speaker's thoughts ...

But alas we do not ...

Ethical decisions are not made in a vacuum.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

!!!Truth is treason in the EMPIRE OF LIES!!!