Passionate Politics
I was just ruminating with a colleague about Ron Paul supports and how, on average, they seem to be sort of obnoxious. This is something that’s been bothering me for awhile. I wondered if perhaps libertarians were generally obnoxious, self interested people. That may be so, but my friend pointed out something very important- anyone passionate about any candidate is likely to be obnoxious.
That made sense to me. I think some candidates are better than others while some are outright horrible, but am not in love with any of them. I mean, I wouldn’t think of attacking anyone who didn’t support my candidate. Obnoxious though I may be, I try not to be obnoxious about my politics.
And, on a related note, Ron Paul is done. Give it up.
Tags: , politics
Comments (RSS)
February 19th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
“We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world.” - V for Vendetta
The Ron Paul campaign may have failed to secure the GOP nomination, but that was a long shot all along. No, this has always been about the idea of liberty, spreading it like an infection among the sleeping American public, causing the idea to fester up inside of them and make them feverish with a lust for true freedom.
The general election will come and go, and Ron Paul may very well die (in a figurative or literal sense), but the idea will continue to spread and take root.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I saw Ron Paul talk about change. He said he wouldn’t vote for the Civil Rights act. The libertarian idea of liberty denies the interconnectedness of society and forgets the impact that one’s decisions have on others. That’s not the kind of change I’m interested in.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:58 am
But did you stop listening at the moment that he said he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act, or did you wait to find out what his alternative idea is?
Here is an essay on the subject from the man himself:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Some excerpts:
“[...] the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”
“Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.”
“America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”
“[...] while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.”
February 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Oh no, I listened. I disagree. It’s true that the government isn’t very good at solving social problems. What’s your solution?
You know, it’s funny. I like Paul until I started looking at other people who like him. Your blog in particular made me wonder if I wasn’t interested in the wrong candidate.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Libertarianism doesn’t “deny the interconnectedness of society” at all. What it does is simply say that it’s never OK to use force to impose your will on somebody else (excepting for self-defense). Nothing about Libertarianism contradicts working together for the common good, communal activities, or even outright Socialist ideas… as long as participation is voluntary.
Libertarians aren’t inherently opposed to most of the ideas of Socialists, Progressives, etc. but we reject the idea that anybody has the authority to force somebody else to participate in their programs through force (or threat of force).
March 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Again, I disagree. Participation shouldn’t require voluntary action in some circumstances. Take for example, mandatory farmland set-aside. To protect streams, navigable waterways, and water quality, the Department of Agriculture requires that farmland in areas of high grade near waterways must not be farmed. I don’t think that should be voluntary. Many libertarian leaning farmers agree with you and would rather degrade water quality than forgo the profit from their high grade land.
I have about a million examples from rural Illinois if you don’t like that one. So, you can pretend that libertarians aren’t selfish, self-centered, egoists, but I don’t agree. The actions of the one affect the many and libertarianism likes to pretend that isn’t true.