Comments (21)

• lester

  my sister got me a subscription to this publication for christmas. I have never read it and was slightly disspointed just from what I've heard about it but this will be a cool issue looks like

  Published: January 4, 2008 9:49 AM

• Nat

  Not so. Unfortunately, the heads of most people supporting Paul would explode if they found out that a Paul administration (assuming cooperation from Congress) would mean:

  No more government student loans
  
  No more subsidies for Planned Parenthood
  
  No more AFDC
  
  No more SS/SSI
  
  No more Medicare
  
  No more Medicaid
  
  Of course, they could forget about Single Payer

  Published: January 4, 2008 10:17 AM

• TC Bell

  Nat,
  You forgot the BIG one.
  No more Wars being waged in our name for global hegemony!
  

  Published: January 4, 2008 10:25 AM

• Curt Howland

  Which brings up the general question, "Would you give up your _favorite_ government program, if it also meant getting rid of your _least_ favorite?"

  Most people, sadly, when the ballot meets the pen (as it were), say No.

  Old people vote, and old people want their SS payments.

  Drivers want their roads.

  Sick people want their "free" health care.

  Businessmen want their protective tarriffs.

  Leviathan has grown to the point where it really is a war of all against all, with "something for everyone" to bribe them into supporting, tacitly, everything they don't like.

  Governments have always done this. Ten thousand years of practice, why is anyone surprised that it works?

  Published: January 4, 2008 11:42 AM

• Nathan

  Nat, like so many before you, you assume that people are stupid and only care about one issue and never look beneath the surface.

  Its been hard work, but after a while most people come to realize the government, by definition, is not very good at anything and in most cases very bad at it.

  They also come to realize that the law of unintended consequences is always in play (bomb Iraq, oops more people hate us. Subsidize health care, oops less doctors, more lines, more people in emergency rooms for trivial things that the hospitals can't afford. But you can't kick them out. Its required to take care of them. For free)

  I have hope, guarded at times, that people will realize that while thinking with your heart is a noble thing, that you can't remove laws of nature and economics just by wishing it.

  Unlike you, I do have faith in my fellow human being that given all the information, not just the sound bites and the emotion driven drivel, that the right decisions will be made.

  The goal is then to get that information out. ANd this is a key place to do it.

  Published: January 4, 2008 11:59 AM

• mikey

  Dr Paul's message to Americans -set yourselves free from a government that has grown too large and oppressive- might seem too weird to the majority of voters who have never known anything else.His talk of abolishing the Fed and the IRS probably seems the same as abolishing the local fire department to most people.I hope I am wrong.

  Published: January 4, 2008 12:23 PM

• caleb

  I don't know about elsewhere but here in Wilmington NC the Paulites seem to be pretty consciously and broadly libertarian or paleocon, with a few Alex Jones "nuts" thrown in. Of course, these are the very active supporters, so........self-selection, y'know.

  Published: January 4, 2008 12:35 PM

• Deus X. Nihilo

  A movement that seeks to take over the machinery of the state is an "'anti-statist' mass movement." HA! I LOVE IT!!!

  Viva irony!!!!

  Published: January 4, 2008 2:09 PM

• Rich

  I don't think most Paul supporters know what Anti-Statist mean let alone exactly how the positions of one work. This is a large reason the movement hasn't spread. People ask how they are supposed to refute the statist arguements and don't know a thing about there own positions.

  I think mises should come out with kid versions of books since the public does seem a little impatient with actually reading books.

  Published: January 4, 2008 3:18 PM

• Rob Davidson

  A movement that seeks to take over the machinery of the state is an "'anti-statist' mass movement." HA! I LOVE IT!!!

  In order to dismantle the state you need to first get control of the machinery out of the hands of the pro-statists. It's too bad such a simple, obvious point is beyond some people.

  Published: January 4, 2008 3:18 PM

• Parrotocracy

  Deus X. Nihilo,

  You do not see a practical value in taking over the state when the goal is to take it down or limit it? Are you calling the movement hypocritical or just plain foolish? Power is seductive.

  What would you have the anti-state movement do in addition to persuading people to change their minds?

  Published: January 4, 2008 3:26 PM

• Deus X. Nihilo

  Well Parrot, I can't say that I have a neat and snappy answer for you. But I do know that if elections ever actually left people more free than they were before they cast their ballots, they'd be outlawed by now.

  Published: January 4, 2008 5:12 PM

• Inquisitor

  "I think mises should come out with kid versions of books since the public does seem a little impatient with actually reading books."

  'Mises for Dummies'? Heh. Oh wait, it might have to be labeled 'Mises for Differently Abled Persons' in a few years...

  Published: January 4, 2008 5:59 PM

• David C

  Before Ron Paul, I was thinking that democracy would likely end in the information age because it would be impossible for society to secure freedoms from the mob that wants to take it from everybody else. But shockingly, the information age is pointing in a different direction. A direction where it will become impossible to control people by controlling the information they have access to. Extremely difficult to play demographics against each other, because online there is technically no differences - except for with peoples ideas, logic, and beliefs. It seems that the internet and the information age tends to create forces that push democracy and freedom together.

  Between them not being able to lie to people about their money anymore, and the technical death of copyrights, and the new political landscape, the US is literally birthing into the information age. This is really one of the most amazing things I have seen in my life.

  Published: January 4, 2008 9:15 PM

• Brainpolice

  "You do not see a practical value in taking over the state when the goal is to take it down or limit it?"

  No. It is the same strategy of the marxists: take over the state, have the "good guys" control it, then it will somehow magically "wither away". It doesn't work that way.

  Published: January 4, 2008 11:35 PM

• Nick

  --
  Which brings up the general question, "Would you give up your _favorite_ government program, if it also meant getting rid of your _least_ favorite?"

  Most people, sadly, when the ballot meets the pen (as it were), say No.
  --

  Most people call that democracy. Time to suck it up.

  Published: January 5, 2008 9:24 PM

• Brandybuck

  Most core Ron Paul supporters know full well that he would reduce or abolish their favorite handout, entitlement or privilege. The students know this about their favorite loan guarantees, the protectionists know this about their favorite tariffs, etc, etc.

  Published: January 6, 2008 7:02 PM

• Nat

  Heads are exploding already. Headline: "Ron Paul shocker: No more 'anchor babies' - GOP gadfly's 'anti-immigrant' ad irks supporters"

  Money quote from Justin Raimondo: "Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced," he said. "And it is made even worse by the fact that this is Ron Paul we're talking about."

  http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59551

  Published: January 7, 2008 10:22 AM

• Robert P. Churchill

  First of all, with respect to Social Security (and possibly some other stuff), Ron Paul supporters who are at least somewhat up to speed will understand, as the candidate himself has said (like Steve Forbes said before him), that many people currently in the system will have to be supported while the rest of the population transitions out. Indeed, there must be a transition period for many programs that will be "going away," even for the military folks being repatriated from around the world. It took a century and more to create this mess and it is understood that it won't all be fixed overnight. However, you gotta start somewhere.

  Another thing is that it takes a long time for people to develop a fully coherent political philosophy and we shouldn't be too upset if the average young person doesn't hit the ground fully formed. How many people here would look back (if they are old enough) at the votes they cast when they were first able and recoil in horror (for me it's John Anderson >>>). If we're going to have young people out there plumping for a candidate based upon imperfect information, wouldn't you want it to be for positions that are in line with what the (right-minded) founders intended and which both major parties generally *say* they are for but really aren't? How many times have young people been excited about things in the past few decades only to see their ideals swallowed up by the maw of expedient bipartisan rapacity and so-called pragmatism?

  Further, even most people who comment on monetary policy don't understand it, much less the average person who remains rationally ignorant. That Dr. Paul is getting people to understand and think about such a subject (possibly the most important mechanism the state has to obfuscate understanding of its true operation) is nothing short of a miracle.

  One short campaign cannot be expected to produce several million mature Murray Rothbards in a year but it can give quite a number of people some excellent insights that will guide their inquiries through the rest of their lives. In that regard, this campaign has likely brought more people into our meme-set than everything else that has been done in the last 80 years (though this would not be possible without what has come before). That's hardly something to sneeze at.

  Published: January 7, 2008 12:16 PM

• Gary

  Do not phase in:
  "It is, again, generally accepted that free markets must be arrived at quickly, and that phasing them in slowly and gradually will only delay the goal indefinitely. It is well known that the giant socialist bureaucracy will only seize upon such delay to obstruct the goal altogether."
  ...
  "To achieve genuine freedom, the role of government and its advisers must be confined to setting their subjects free, as fast and as completely as it takes to unlock their shackles."
  -Murray Rothbard (How and How Not to Desocialize)

  Published: January 7, 2008 8:42 PM

• darjen

  Robert P. Churchill is right. I consider myself to be a full fledged Rothbardian ancap, but I started off as a small state libertarian in college. It would be great if Ron Paul won... but the real value in his campaign is getting more people started on this path. That is why I donated money to him. Not necessarily because of any hope that the state can actually be reduced any time soon.

  Published: January 7, 2008 10:09 PM