Ron Paul??? What the Heck???

[MechAg94]

Actually, political debates would be much more interesting and likely honest if they had to chug beers or drink shots after each question. 

I want the House and Senate floor to look like the one in Taiwan when they get into a disagreement. Room-clearing brawl. People would pay to watch that.

Suddenly C-SPAN has the highest ratings on cable TV.  Look out Oprah! 

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, I called then Paulistinians after they ran around Manchester in a screaming, near-rioting mob screaming about Fox News not hosting their messiah. It looked exactly like one of the infamous rock-throwing-fests.

People get angry. People protest.

Was it supposed to be a protest, or a primary? 

[Manedwolf]

Actually, I called then Paulistinians after they ran around Manchester in a screaming, near-rioting mob screaming about Fox News not hosting their messiah. It looked exactly like one of the infamous rock-throwing-fests.

People get angry. People protest.

Was it supposed to be a protest, or a primary? 

It was supposed to be a primary.

And it wasn't a "protest". Here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7b4IqC8BA8

[MicroBalrog]

And it wasn't a "protest". Here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7b4IqC8BA8

Seen it before.

Have you seriously not seen a real angry mob that you are calling that an angry, violence-prone, mob?

[Glock Glockler]

Those people are an absolute embarrassment.

[El Tejon]

Wow, look at how animated the Paulistas are!  They are off the couch and moving!

Must be after noon.

[Glock Glockler]

People get angry. People protest

There's a productive way to protest, think "We shall overcome", and there's looking like a bunch of immature nutjobs who don't deserve to be taken seriously. 

[Manedwolf]

And it wasn't a "protest". Here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7b4IqC8BA8

Seen it before.

Have you seriously not seen a real angry mob that you are calling that an angry, violence-prone, mob?

Seen riots in Miami. That's closer to that than to a political protest.

A political protest should be a group of adults making their case in a show of numbers with a clear message delivered in a civilized manner.

That was a bunch of idiots acting like animals. If that's your idea of a valid political protest, I suggest you revise it before coming to the US.

[MicroBalrog]

So your argument is that only a protest-through-numbers is valid?

A one-man protest is not valid anymore?

The various naked lie-ins of the peace movement are now 'not valid'?

And I've seen an angry mob. That's not even close.

[Glock Glockler]

Micro,

After Maned posted that clip I showed it to a total of 5 people, none of whom had seen it before, after watching it every one of them was surprised and had a lower opinion of Ron Paul.  The point of a protest is to 1) let people know that you object to some type of injustice, and 2) hopefully getting them to side with you.  Looking like a nutjob certainly doesn't accomplish #2 and it might even make people question the "injustice" they're protesting.

Here's the main thing, why are you drinking the Kool-Aid?  I understand that you're all about the FSP and like the idea of a candidate who talks about liberty, when I first heard about the FSP I loved the idea, but then I started meeting FSP members.  I was completely psyched when found out Ron Paul was running and I've become more and more disenchanted with him over time.  I'm not saying you need to share my opinion, only that you have enough presence of mind fo call a spade a spade.  I LOVE to talk smack about Obama and his supporters, but if Ron Paul supporters are behaving just as nutty then we should criticize them just as much. 

At this point it appears these "protesters" are counter-productive, I don't know what they've done to advance the cause of liberty but I sure know they've turned people off.

Other than that, Happy Memorial Day everyone!

[oldfart]

As a kid in school, I was somewhat of an outcast.  I was smaller than my classmates but smarter than they and they didn't like being shown up by the "fat little shrimp."  As my marginalization began to show some success (at least from their point of view) they did it to other kids for other reasons and soon there were several of us on the ouside looking in. 

Then something interesting happened.  We "misfits" kinda banded together out of necessity and became a force to be dealt with.  In our small school we had some real power though we lacked the experience to really know how to wield it.  So we became troublemakers.  Nothing real serious because we knew our parents would kill us if we did anything really dumb but we still took every opportunity to pee in the cornflakes of those who had ostracized us.

I think we're now looking at a larger group of people recently labled "moonbats" and "loonies" who have found strength in numbers.  Every once in awhile you can expect them to do something really stupid if for no other reason than to let off steam.  If they also shake the whithered husk that is our present political system and cause a few seeds to fall onto fertile soil...  well, all the better.  But even if they don't those who treasure their status quo had better keep a close eye on their cornflakes!

[MicroBalrog]

First off, what Oldfart said.

Second, I know a variety of FSP members. I'm not naming names, because I'm not sure these people would like it publicly known that they're my friends (and because it may be seen as bragging). I've also followed Ron Paul's actions in Congress since I've first heard about him, which was around 2003 (some of you remember me from back then). I'm not one of the people who jumped on the bandwagon just now because they heard about it on the Interwebs and they think it's really cool.

Third, consider history. When a movement that wants to seriously change the system is born, first it's advocated by intellectuals, then it's joined by various disenfranchised weirdos who think they've been screwed by the world (rightly or not), and then the various power players - wealthy elites, or politicians or whoever - who stand to gain from it join in usually just before or simultaneously with the regular joes.

We're now at the stage of wackos and weirdos joining. It's okay. There's nothing really wrong with someone dressing for a different peer group than mine, or being generally all weird-out. I'm a huge weirdo myself in real life, and in some countries I'd qualify to be put away for good.

Fourth, consider an army. A political movement is a lot like an army on the march. You have the strategists, you have the sappers, the pilots, some nations have kamikazes, and they all converge towards the cause.

Fifth, how does a small group of people with beliefs everybody thinks are outlandish make itself heard? By SCREAMING.

You do civil disobedience, you do protests, you do naked lie-ins, you do crazy stuff, because otherwise nobody will hear you.

[Perd Hapley]

A political protest should be a group of adults making their case in a show of numbers with a clear message delivered in a civilized manner.   

So your argument is that only a protest-through-numbers is valid?  A one-man protest is not valid anymore?

No, that is clearly not his point. 

The various naked lie-ins of the peace movement are now 'not valid'?

Why should they be considered valid?  Valid is a very vague term.  A "naked lie-in" is certainly very foolish and should give any movement a bad name.  They are obviously childish, and have more to do with the participants' emotional/psychological problems than they have to do with the supposed "cause."

[MicroBalrog]

A "naked lie-in" is certainly very foolish and should give any movement a bad name.  They are obviously childish, and have more to do with the participants' emotional/psychological problems than they have to do with the supposed "cause."

If it's stupid, but it works...

Naked lie-ins haven't given the peace movement a bad name, except among people who already think that anti-war protestors are worthless longhairs.

[Glock Glockler]

Naked lie-ins haven't given the peace movement a bad name, except among people who already think that anti-war protestors are worthless longhairs.

As well as people on the fence, who are also the most important of all.  The average guy on the street is the one who will determine the direction a movement goes, is he going to be swayed by naked hippies?

[Manedwolf]

Fifth, how does a small group of people with beliefs everybody thinks are outlandish make itself heard? By SCREAMING.

You do civil disobedience, you do protests, you do naked lie-ins, you do crazy stuff, because otherwise nobody will hear you.

Funny, I think one of the most effective movements in America in the 20th century was done by a well-dressed man who behaved in a civilized manner, and made speeches eloquently in the Washington Mall to vast crowds. You might have heard one or two, one includes the words "I have a dream..."

Even other participants in that movement who were effective were civilized about it. Rosa Parks simply refused to sit where the black people were supposed to sit, but she didn't throw a screaming fit. She just did it in a dignified manner.

Another successful movement was done by a soft-spoken Indian man, bald, with glasses, who led a disobeyance against a salt tax and other injustices. There was no screaming.

Only the childish scream and rant. The effective, the adult, make their case in a manner that people will listen to.

When one party is calm and collected and the other is screaming, who appears to be in control?

[Perd Hapley]

If it's stupid, but it works...
Can you provide evidence that nudity has helped the cause of groups that have used it as a form of protest or consciousness-raising?

Naked lie-ins haven't given the peace movement a bad name, except among people who already think that anti-war protestors are worthless longhairs.

This is a curious view you have, that anyone who is turned off by nudity must also have a hopelessly bigoted view of peace protesters or men with long hair. 

[MicroBalrog]

Consider, conversely, the Left.

There has always been a coalition of various people - calm, rationed-looking college professors, union bosses (and you know of course early unions were often violent and linked to the mob), angry feminists, and of course, various hidden communists, and so on. Anarchists and communist radicals played a role in the formation of the union movement. Some of them were pretty crazy mofos.

But look today - say on live TV that the graduated income tax is a socialist measure, and you'll be derided as an utter madman. Nevermind that it IS a socialist measure.

And as for MLK, he had a variety of allies in the civil rights movement who were not quite as nice and civil as him. We just remember him as the 'face' of the movement, but it also had a lot of other body parts - which is not to draw from the general validity of the movement.

The statists have won, and they have won so much that it'll take decades upon decades of hard work until the Wilson-FDR-LBJ welfare state is undone, if we only restrain ourselves to wearing ties and being cute and reasonable. The damage that they've inflicted to every aspect of American culture in particular and Western culture in general is innumerable.

Assuming the libertarian movement has it right, and we should strive for a minarchist future (I know you think drug dealers need to be shot, but bear with me), making that happen by the comfortable tie-wearing ways will take at least as long as it took to build the modern welfare state - say, 70 years?

Now, I know that you think it's funny when people call what we have today opressive, and it's naturally not even close to being as evil as Stalin and Hitler and Mao. But, just for the purpose of this argument, imagine yourself in my shoes. I *do* think that it is opressive and evil, and I want to actually live in a society that is at least remotely like what I think is fair before I'm in a wheelchair and drooling on my shirt.

If the cost is endorsing a guy who looks slightly wacked-out to the average man in the street, so be it. I look slightly wacked-out to many people, too.

[Glock Glockler]

I *do* think that it is opressive and evil, and I want to actually live in a society that is at least remotely like what I think is fair before I'm in a wheelchair and drooling on my shirt.

Micro, what you don't get is that 'being radical' doesn't get you to that goal any quicker, it actually takes more time because you wind up alienating people.  If you actually want to move the football forward you need to get into the head of the average Joe and get him to agree with you, so what is going to accomplish that?

[Manedwolf]

I *do* think that it is opressive and evil, and I want to actually live in a society that is at least remotely like what I think is fair before I'm in a wheelchair and drooling on my shirt.

Micro, what you don't get is that 'being radical' doesn't get you to that goal any quicker, it actually takes more time because you wind up alienating people.  If you actually want to move the football forward you need to get into the head of the average Joe and get him to agree with you, so what is going to accomplish that?

That is the point, yes. A movement needs followers. If you piss people off, they'll become followers of the people opposing you.

[MicroBalrog]

I *do* think that it is opressive and evil, and I want to actually live in a society that is at least remotely like what I think is fair before I'm in a wheelchair and drooling on my shirt.

Micro, what you don't get is that 'being radical' doesn't get you to that goal any quicker, it actually takes more time because you wind up alienating people.  If you actually want to move the football forward you need to get into the head of the average Joe and get him to agree with you, so what is going to accomplish that?

That's only part of it. You also need to get to the average Joe, first. He must first even be aware that you exist. How many people, who are not political junkies, are aware of the libertarian position on a given issue? How many of those are aware that a decent argument exists for that position (not saying it's necessarily true - I disagree with the libertarian position on immigration, abortion, and a couple of other things), rather than it being completely outlandish?

How do you get past the gatekeepers?

[Perd Hapley]

Our argument isn't entirely outlandish, see?  After all, we're naked and we're screaming!   

[Glock Glockler]

How do you get past the gatekeepers?

1 - Talk to voters about things they're interested in as opposed to what you're interested in, this means things like gas and food prices, healthcare, education, etc, and not pontificating about the unconstitutionality of the govt., the war on drugs, legalizing prostitution, etc.  People don't give a crap about the Constitution, they just want something that works and makes their lives better, just convince them that we'd be better off with 'market regulation' rather than 'govt. regulation' and they'll buy.

2 - Pound the pavement!  This means they need to put down the Cheetos and build a party the old fashioned way by knocking on doors and making phone calls, and meeting people.  You also need to build a social network to support your political activities, this means getting together for shooting, softball games, BBQs, etc. 

Unfortunately most libertarians I know would rather spend 18 hours debating nonsense like privatizing roads instead of knocking on a single door.  This is where the appeal of their childish antics comes into play, by cursing out Sean Hannity they can think of themselves as "activists" while still avoiding having to meaningfully interact with anyone new. 

Building and organizing an effective base for lasting political change is not fun, it's a lot of thankless hard work that will take time, and if you're not prepard to put that in then you're not actually serious about changing things. 

[MicroBalrog]

And where do I deny this?

But the truth is, all of these things are necessary. Like the leftists have the eminent tie-wearing academics, and the party hacks, and the full-time protesty fellows who help them attract attention to Ze Cause. Every one of those has his purpose.


So libertarians [by analogy] need the Cato Institute, and they need the LewRockwell.com guys, AND they need to have their people in the Republican party, running for primaries and voting etc. (because let's face it, the LP is dead at best), AND they need the full-time protesters.

And of course there's a niche reach out thing. A lot of the people who read High Times and the like are potential recruits in the same way people who read, say, The New Gun Week are potential recruits. THere are people who are better set to reach out to one community rather than to the other.

[Manedwolf]

Actually, most people look at the conspiracy nuts like Lew Rockwell, the 9/11 troofers and others the same way they look at the people on Jerry Springer.

They point and laugh.

That is not an effective political strategy. People join up with things they think are cool, not that they point and laugh at.