Was Ron Paul's presidential campaign a success?

[Meeker]

Absolutely. The man has created a legitimate political movement (and perhaps soon force) out of an ideology that was barely even discussed before. Considering he knew he was never actually going to be elected President, I think the result that occurred was the best possible option he could've hoped for.

[Scam of God]

Not for actual libertarians, no.

[Mechaman]

For pseudolibertarian paleoconservatives maybe, not for actual libertarians. Hopefully his bringing attention to libertarianism in general may get people attracted to real libertarianism instead of his tailor made for disaffected conservatives pseudolibertarianism.

[DownWithTheLeft]

As a Paulite, I'd say yes.

[Meeker]

Yeah, Paul is definitely not a libertarian (and I was never trying to claim so). His own personal ideology is what I was referring to.

Does Paul even refer to himself as a libertarian? I seem to recall him always avoiding using that specific word.

[Scam of God]

Does Paul even refer to himself as a libertarian? I seem to recall him always avoiding using that specific word.

No, but the GOP, in their usually wormy way, like to hold him aloft to defend their pretension that there is still room in the Republican Party for libertarians.

[Mechaman]

Does Paul even refer to himself as a libertarian? I seem to recall him always avoiding using that specific word.

No, but the GOP, in their usually wormy way, like to hold him aloft to defend their pretension that there is still room in the Republican Party for libertarians.

[paul718]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

[Meeker]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Trade. And for many abortion.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Trade. And for many abortion.

What is his trade position, then?

[paul718]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Trade. And for many abortion.

What is his trade position, then?

Protectionist, I'm guessing.

[Scam of God]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Trade. And for many abortion.

What is his trade position, then?

Paul has openly advocated repealing NAFTA. And his social positions are absolutely horrid.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Trade. And for many abortion.

What is his trade position, then?

Protectionist, I'm guessing.

I remember him talking about free trade, so I doubt it. I think he opposes NAFTA on non-interventionist grounds, but he still supports free trade.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Trade. And for many abortion.

Basically his trade position is a little out of whack with a pure libertarian, but he's certainly a libertarian imho.  Although I've always considered myself to be a libertarian when many don't

[Alexander Hamilton]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Trade. And for many abortion.

Basically his trade position is a little out of whack with a pure libertarian, but he's certainly a libertarian imho.  Although I've always considered myself to be a libertarian when many don't

I consider myself a social libertarian.

[Mechaman]

For me it's his stances against open borders that does it in.

[Scam of God]

For me it's his stances against open borders that does it in.

This, too. I oppose, and will continue to oppose, any attempt to interject national-collectivism into libertarian philosophy.

[Alexander Hamilton]

For me it's his stances against open borders that does it in.

It's pragmatism. For a libertarian philosophy to ever be rationally applied to a Western government in any way, it will have to be altered to work within the boundaries of that nation's political spectrum and the confinements of real world challenges.

[Scam of God]

For me it's his stances against open borders that does it in.

It's pragmatism. For a libertarian philosophy to ever be rationally applied to a Western government in any way, it will have to be altered to work within the boundaries of that nation's political spectrum and the confinements of real world challenges.

Garbage. Libertarianism already 'worked' fine - during the Age of Enlightenment, under the rule of the Jeffersonian Republicans. There is no need to water the philosophy down to appeal to the cretinous national-socialists of the nation. And there is no measure of determination there if one was going to do it anyway - why not instead try to appeal to progressives? If it's going to be sold out one way, then which way?

[Alexander Hamilton]

For me it's his stances against open borders that does it in.

It's pragmatism. For a libertarian philosophy to ever be rationally applied to a Western government in any way, it will have to be altered to work within the boundaries of that nation's political spectrum and the confinements of real world challenges.

Garbage. Libertarianism already 'worked' fine - during the Age of Enlightenment, under the rule of the Jeffersonian Republicans. There is no need to water the philosophy down to appeal to the cretinous national-socialists of the nation. And there is no measure of determination there if one was going to do it anyway - why not instead try to appeal to progressives? If it's going to be sold out one way, then which way?

Jefferson and Jeffersonians were far from libertarians.

If your goal is increasingly liberty, you should be willing to compromise to get what you want, because you can't achieve it all at once. Progressivism is not an ideology, it is a means of thinking.

[President Mitt]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

[Scam of God]

For me it's his stances against open borders that does it in.

It's pragmatism. For a libertarian philosophy to ever be rationally applied to a Western government in any way, it will have to be altered to work within the boundaries of that nation's political spectrum and the confinements of real world challenges.

Garbage. Libertarianism already 'worked' fine - during the Age of Enlightenment, under the rule of the Jeffersonian Republicans. There is no need to water the philosophy down to appeal to the cretinous national-socialists of the nation. And there is no measure of determination there if one was going to do it anyway - why not instead try to appeal to progressives? If it's going to be sold out one way, then which way?

Jefferson and Jeffersonians were far from libertarians.

They were far closer to it than Reagan and the rest of the right-libertarian false idols ever were or could be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again: why choose one group of cretins over another to compromise with?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

Marriage should not be a government institution, and abortion is subject to whether or not you view it as murder. A libertarian could be against abortion on the basis that they are against murder. Would you support the legality of homicide?

[Scam of God]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

Marriage should not be a government institution, and abortion is subject to whether or not you view it as murder. A libertarian could be against abortion on the basis that they are against murder. Would you support the legality of homicide?

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will. There is no legitimate grounding in libertarian philosophy for opposing the right to choose. Can someone 'compromise' on it? Certainly. And that person is not a libertarian.

[Alexander Hamilton]

For me it's his stances against open borders that does it in.

It's pragmatism. For a libertarian philosophy to ever be rationally applied to a Western government in any way, it will have to be altered to work within the boundaries of that nation's political spectrum and the confinements of real world challenges.

Garbage. Libertarianism already 'worked' fine - during the Age of Enlightenment, under the rule of the Jeffersonian Republicans. There is no need to water the philosophy down to appeal to the cretinous national-socialists of the nation. And there is no measure of determination there if one was going to do it anyway - why not instead try to appeal to progressives? If it's going to be sold out one way, then which way?

Jefferson and Jeffersonians were far from libertarians.

They were far closer to it than Reagan and the rest of the right-libertarian false idols ever were or could be.

Where did I say that Reagan was a libertarian? If any Presidents were libertarian in any way, I'd suggest looking into the Cleveland, Harding, and Coolidge administrations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again: why choose one group of cretins over another to compromise with?
[/quote]

When did I say that you needed to choose one group?