Dr. Ruwart, author of Healing Our World: The Compassion of Libertarianism, former candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination and former member of the Libertarian National Committee will be a featured speaker at the Architects of the New Paradigm Conference in Ashland Oregon, 25 to 26 March 2017. She will be joined by self-described “radical voluntaryist” Foster Gamble, whose 2011 documentary THRIVE (and subsequent movement) explicates a path toward a libertarian/voluntaryist utopian future for humanity.
Dr. Ruwart’s presentation and follow-up “deep dive intensive” will explicate how, “as children, we learned the principle of non-aggression, which we routinely practice in our daily lives. However, we abandon these principles when we interact group-to-group, usually through government, without even being aware of it. Consequently, we blame “selfish others” for the world’s woes, without recognizing how we might have inadvertently played right into their hands. This interactive lecture will demonstrate how we’ve been manipulated to act against our most cherished beliefs, helping to create war and poverty in the process. Once we understand how to apply the non-aggression principle, we can dis-empower “selfish others” and create universal harmony and abundance.”
Other presenters include civil rights attorney Daniel Sheehan; Foster Gamble; John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man;” Joel Garbon; Jennifer Margulis; Nassim Haramein; and Will Wilkinson.
The full conference schedule can be found HERE.
Additional information on the Architects of the New Paradigm Conference can be found in the video below or at the conference website HERE.
Wow. All this time I thought it was just detractors who made fun of libertarians that said libertarians believed in a utopian life….. that statement alone is enough to turn me off.
Just one more reason I refuse to join ANY group think regardless of label.
Utopia is a dream/fantasy and it’s also used to detract from libertarian principles which would in no way create any kind of utopia, but, would allow individuals to pursue a utopia IF that was their desire.
Andy: ” . . . . .Also, Gary Johnson did not even really run for President as a libertarian, he ran more as an independent moderate Republican who used the Libertarian Party for ballot access. . . . .”
No, he didn’t run as the kind of Libertarian YOU want the LP to nominate. Thankfully, your opinion is in the minority.
How have you not had 5 heart attacks already with all of the unnecessary stress and frustration you bloviate about every day? Have you considered De-caf . . . or valium?
“Ron Paul endorsed Ken Cucinelli in large part because Rand Paul was running for President and Rand would have needed an endorsement from a sitting Governor of a large state like Virginia if Cucinelli had won.”
Whatever you think of this explanation, “principled” it isn’t. The fact is Paul threw a solid, well-performing LP candidate under the bus for a selfish political reward from an awful anti-liberty Republican…. that he, quite rightly, didn’t even end up getting, and wouldn’t have much benefited from even if he had. This isn’t the only example; review the list of candidates Ron Paul has endorsed and you’ll find a lot of terrible (but invariably well-funded) Republican candidates, usually but not necessarily of a vaguely Tea-Party-ish sort, and a big fat goose-egg for Libertarian candidates.
“So what? The fact remains that marriage is not a federal issue, and the fact also remains that Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he does hot believe that any level of government should be involved in marriage licensing.”
Which is where what Ron Paul said, and what the legislation he supported and defended actually did, are at odds with each other. His rationalization of it is either deliberately inaccurate, or he hadn’t read the law in question and didn’t know what it did (which I think is unlikely). Section 3 of DOMA was not exactly an obscure or unknown provision; it was a a central part of that law and extensively debated.
“anyone would be hard pressed to name one person who has accomplished more good for liberty than Ron Paul.”
Milton Friedman. FA Hayek. Ayn Rand.
Love them or hate them, there are several individuals who have reached more individuals with libertarian ideas than Paul’s presidential campaigns. They produced works that have been consumed by, and influenced, hundreds of millions of people; not a couple of million voters in one or two elections.
That’s not to knock Paul. You can like and appreciate Paul and what all he did, without thinking he’s the single best and biggest thing that ever happened to libertarianism orders of magnitude beyond any comparison. Particularly not as his personal influence continues to wane and recede into history.
I think when one considers more narrowly what each has accomplished for the Libertarian Party, Johnson obviously far outstrips Paul… again, not that it’s a competition between the two of them. Both have done a lot more than any of their critics. But I think it self-evident that votes for the Libertarian Party presidential nominee help the Libertarian Party more than votes for a Republican primary candidate who endorses the L.P.’s opponents.
It is really quite amazing that Ron Paul has as good of a track record as he has when you consider how long he was in Congress. If Ron Paul was a really bad guy he would have sold out a long time ago. The fact that he never went to “the dark side” shows that he’s a man of very good character.
Does this mean that he’s perfect? No, like I said above, there is no perfect candidate or perfect person.
Ron Paul is pretty damn good though.
AC said: “But if you can’t *admit* that Ron Paul ever took an anti-libertarian or unconstitutional position on any issue, you’re just denying reality. Of course he did, and he did so often on the topics where it was most politically advantageous for him to do so as a conservative Republican. When socially conservative dogma clashed with the Constitution, libertarianism, or both, he often went with pandering to the social conservatives. Good, bad, or indifferent, he’s not a paragon of refusal to ever compromise on pure libertarianism.”
A perfect candidate does not exist. Name one candidate, or one libertarian who you think is perfect, and I’d be willing to bet that we could find something wrong with them. Nobody is beyond criticism.
Having said this, Ron Paul has a pretty damn good record, and anyone would be hard pressed to name one person who has accomplished more good for liberty than Ron Paul.
Name one person who has done more to advance the cause of liberty than Ron Paul. I can’t even think of anyone right now. If there are any people who have accomplished more, it would have to be a pretty short list, and I’m not sure if there is anyone who has done more.
“AC
January 12, 2017 at 19:26
That Paul technically wasn’t in Congress for DOMA is dodging the point, which is that he said he would have voted for it (including in the campaign in which he was elected right after DOMA’s passage), stood against repealing it, introduced legislation to ban federal courts from even considering its constitutionality, and complained when the Supreme Court struck down his desired federal attack on the marriage policies of states that didn’t ban same-sex marriage. He might as well have voted for it for all intents and purposes.”
So what? The fact remains that marriage is not a federal issue, and the fact also remains that Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he does hot believe that any level of government should be involved in marriage licensing.
Also, a much bigger issue here that is conveniently being ignored is that Ron Paul supports JURY NULLIFICATION. Under a system of where jurors are all randomly selected, and all are fully informed about the right of jury nullification, PEOPLE CAN DISOBEY UNJUST LAWS AND NOT GET PROSECUTED.
Ron Paul also favored abolishing the income tax and a bunch of other government programs to where marriage is an issue. There’d be no filing income taxes as a single person or a married couple because there’d be no income tax. There’d be no need to be concerned about passing on Social Security benefits to a spouse because Social Security would not exist.
Marriage was turned into a political issue because of the statist paradigm.
That Paul technically wasn’t in Congress for DOMA is dodging the point, which is that he said he would have voted for it (including in the campaign in which he was elected right after DOMA’s passage), stood against repealing it, introduced legislation to ban federal courts from even considering its constitutionality, and complained when the Supreme Court struck down his desired federal attack on the marriage policies of states that didn’t ban same-sex marriage. He might as well have voted for it for all intents and purposes.
You can argue states should be able to decide whether or not to ban gay marriage. You can argue libertarians shouldn’t care about discriminatory bans, and instead should only ever talk about abolition of civil marriage altogether. I don’t agree with either of those, but even if I did, Ron Paul’s defense of DOMA was at odds with both of those positions. DOMA created a federal marriage policy. Ron Paul defended DOMA doing that. DOMA was struck down precisely because Congress doesn’t have that power and it was intruding on the powers of the states. Ron Paul wanted the federal government to pick and choose which state-legal marriages to recognize based on a national definition of marriage…. that’s just a fact. His defense of DOMA respected neither liberty nor the Constitution nor the 10th Amendment nor the rights of the states.
You can say Paul is more libertarian or more consistently so than Johnson, though I think that’s debatable, particularly if you overstate their differences on many topics where they had functionally identical positions. You can say that Paul was a great public messenger of libertarian ideas, and very few people would disagree with that.
But if you can’t *admit* that Ron Paul ever took an anti-libertarian or unconstitutional position on any issue, you’re just denying reality. Of course he did, and he did so often on the topics where it was most politically advantageous for him to do so as a conservative Republican. When socially conservative dogma clashed with the Constitution, libertarianism, or both, he often went with pandering to the social conservatives. Good, bad, or indifferent, he’s not a paragon of refusal to ever compromise on pure libertarianism.
And you know what… he probably never would have been a long-term Republican congressman or high-profile presidential candidate if he hadn’t, and maybe it was a compromise worth making because of that. But either that’s what he did, or he was just flat-out wrong (even if sincerely so) on those issues. That’s why I find it so hypocritical when Paul himself, or those who hold him as some sort of purist paragon, act like he was above every dirtying himself with impure positions or calculated triangulation. He wasn’t, and he never was.
If getting votes is the most important thing, the Libertarian Party ought to nominate Bernie Sanders as its presidential candidate in 2020. Bernie Sanders would almost certainly get more votes than Gary Johnson, so going by the “logic” that says that getting votes is the most important thing, Sanders would make the Libertarian Party even more relevant than Gary Johnson.
“Tony From Long Island
January 12, 2017 at 15:36
Andy: ‘ . . . .That’s exactly what Bob Barr did, as in Barr kept the Libertarian Party completely marginal. . . .’
That’s what pretty much every single LP POTUS candidate has done . . . . .except Gov. Johnson”
And once again you conveniently IGNORE the fact that the dynamics of each election are different. Gary Johnson ran under the EASIEST set of circumstances, both in 2012 and especially in 2016, in which a Libertarian Party candidate has ever run for President.
Also, Gary Johnson did not even really run for President as a libertarian, he ran more as an independent moderate Republican who used the Libertarian Party for ballot access.
Another thing that you ignore is that Gary Johnson actually underperformed, as there was real potential for the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket to gain a lot more votes than what they ended up with due to the more favorable than average dynamics of the election.
Andy: ” . . . .That’s exactly what Bob Barr did, as in Barr kept the Libertarian Party completely marginal. . . . ”
That’s what pretty much every single LP POTUS candidate has done . . . . .except Gov. Johnson
“Deran
January 12, 2017 at 13:34
Ms Ruwart seems the perfect Libertarian candidate – as far as the Dems and GOP are concerned. She’d appeal to the purist/maoist libertarian capitalists and help keep the party completely marginal.”
That’s exactly what Bob Barr did, as in Barr kept the Libertarian Party completely marginal.
Ms Ruwart seems the perfect Libertarian candidate – as far as the Dems and GOP are concerned. She’d appeal to the purist/maoist libertarian capitalists and help keep the party completely marginal.
G Phillies – The Amendment had, I am told already lost the key vote, so Congress could not have acted on marriage.
Yes, the amendment failed in Congress: it won a majority, but not the 2/3 necessary. But that was in 2006, 10 years after passing DOMA.
The DOMA-defenders would claim that it was precisely because of DOMA that the amendment failed; that people who would have voted for it didn’t, not because they supported gay marriage, but because they didn’t see the amendment as necessary: DOMA was good enough, and it was doing its job on the federal level.
That’s arguable; but one bit of evidence for it is that, on the state level where DOMA didn’t apply, 30 states passed same-sex-marriage prohibitions in their constitutions, vs. one attempt that failed. (I’m not counting the Virginia failure, because that happened in 2012 – the year public opinion flipped, and suddenly a majority supported the right to ssm.)
On the other hand, that’s purely Viguerie’s assessment. Bob Barr never defended DOMA on those terms – all he did was apologize and pronounce himself against DOMA. That could be because he was a cynical politician, pandering to his audience (probably the option you’d accept); but it could also be because he was running for the Libertarian nomination. And it’s hard, if not impossible, for a candidate to go “into the weeds” and debate political strategy in the middle of an election campaign. (Look at what happened to Rand Paul, when he tried to start a debate like that on the Civil Rights Act!) So it could be Barr, or his campaign advisers, just decided to not get into it, and go for the easier option: apologize and recant.
Andy – your premise was that a “hardcore libertarian” could win lots and lots of votes.
Your defense of Ron Paul is admirable and yes. he is a great communicator of libertarian principles, but he is not the type of “hardcore libertarian” you were referring to. So your ceaseless vitriol here is unnecessary.
You seem to think that someone like Daryl Perry would have done as well as Gov. Johnson did this year. In my opinion, that is laughable.
16 year old kid DESTROYS Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson is NOT a Libertarian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul-wafI4K4A
Gary Johnson does not even deserve to be called a libertarian, in my opinion.
AC said: “It’s not a contest, but Paul’s platform was only dramatically more libertarian than Johnson’s if you cherry-pick willy-nilly as to which issues count and which don’t. ”
This is a completely absurd statement. Anyone who thinks that Gary Johnson is even close to being as libertarian as Ron Paul does not deserve to be taken seriously.
Gun rights. Taxes. The Federal Reserve System. The War on Drugs. Jury Nullification. I could go on, but there is really no need to do so. Ron Paul wins hands down. It is not even a contest.
Ron Paul was also much better in interviews and debates. He did not make an ass of himself like Gary Johnson did on multiple occasions.
George Dance – you quoted me above, but it wasn’t me who said that regarding Ron Paul’s marriage policy. That was someone named “AC”
No biggie Jorge . . 🙂
Campaign for Liberty: Robert Sarvis Never Even Filled Out Our Candidate Survey
http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/28/campaign-liberty-robert-sarvis-never-even-filled-candidate-survey/
Ron Paul’s open advocacy for jury nullification puts him ahead of most people.
Ron Paul: Jury Nullification. How to end the drug war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhNqZL7ai38
The Amendment had, I am told already lost the key vote, so Congress could not have acted on marriage.
Tonio de Isla Longa – “Ron Paul endorsed and supported the creation of a *national* marriage policy whereby Congress created its own *national* definition of what constitutes a valid marriage. That’s what DOMA was.”
In fairness, I’ve read (from Richard Viguerie) that DOMA was an attempt to head off the push, by some social conservatives, to get a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. No matter how wrong-headed it was, such a thing was a real possibility in the 1990’s.
If you don’t believe Viguerie, I’d call the supporting evidence of Hillary Clinton, who mentioned the same scenario during the 2016 campaign to justify her own support of DOMA at the time.
Ron Paul endorsed Ken Cucinelli in large part because Rand Paul was running for President and Rand would have needed an endorsement from a sitting Governor of a large state like Virginia if Cucinelli had won.
Also, the Sarvis campaign never bothered to return the candidate survey from Campaign for Libetry.
Andy: ” . . . . Funny how so many libertarians think that gays getting marriage licenses is some kind of great victory for liberty, when it is only a band aid on a bigger problem, and that is too much government. . . . ”
Hmm if by “liberty” you mean equal protection under the law . . . then yes. . . . yes it was.
If by liberty you mean “not being discriminated against” . . . then yes . . . yes it was.
Most people . . .and I would say 99% . . . are not all or nothing people. If you had to pick three things that you could eliminate from government immediately, I don’t know if anyone would have “getting government out of the marriage business” on their list.
“AC
January 10, 2017 at 14:33
Whether you think government should get out of marriage entirely, or whether you think marriage should be strictly left to the states and not the federal government…. the pieces of legislation that Ron Paul supported didn’t do either of those things. Ron Paul endorsed and supported the creation of a *national* marriage policy whereby Congress created its own *national* definition of what constitutes a valid marriage. That’s what DOMA was.”
First of all, Ron Paul was not in office when DOMA passed. Second of all, the purist libertarian position on marriage is NOT gays getting state marriage licenses, but rather that the government stay completely out of marriage. Ron Paul correctly pointed out that under the 10th amendment, marriage is left to the states, not the federal government.
Funny how so many libertarians think that gays getting marriage licenses is some kind of great victory for liberty, when it is only a band aid on a bigger problem, and that is too much government.
Ron Paul on Gay Marriage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3PXANu7mUc
Whether you think government should get out of marriage entirely, or whether you think marriage should be strictly left to the states and not the federal government…. the pieces of legislation that Ron Paul supported didn’t do either of those things. Ron Paul endorsed and supported the creation of a *national* marriage policy whereby Congress created its own *national* definition of what constitutes a valid marriage. That’s what DOMA was.
It’s not a contest, but Paul’s platform was only dramatically more libertarian than Johnson’s if you cherry-pick willy-nilly as to which issues count and which don’t. Abortion. Immigration. Marriage. If you don’t care about somebody having a libertarian position on those issues…. OK, but then you’re just saying Ron Paul agreed more with *you*, not that he was more libertarian.
While we’re at it, let’s not forget his habit of endorsing and campaigning for awful authoritarian Republican candidates who have Libertarian opponents. Or am I supposed to buy that Ken Cuccinelli was “more libertarian” than Robert Sarvis, too?
Andy: ” . . . .HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This is coming from a guy who wouldn’t know a libertarian principle if it violated the NAP and bit him on the ass. . . .”
Come on Andy, even your deluded paranoid brain knows that’s not true.
Seems to be the consensus in this thread that Ron Paul is not a “hard core libertarian,” It just bothers you so much that I stopped drinking the kool-ade a few years ago.
I have well-annotated copies of “The Revolution: A Manifesto” and “Liberty Defined.” I agreed with Dr. Paul on a lot of things (particularly foreign policy), but vehemently disagreed with him on some also. The pages are full of notes from me (lotsa time to do that in prison).
The LP is as deeply divided as the Dems and Reps right now. The chasm in the LP is wide. If I were still a member, you and I would obviously be on different sides. I would just happen to be on the side with more members – the non-purist side.
“Ron Paul took the correct libertarian view on gay marriage, as in the the government should not license marriage in the first place.”
To a libertarian anarchist that may be correct; government shouldn’t register marriages for the same reason it shouldn’t register any contracts. But how does someone, like Paul, who thinks that a government has a “right” to regulate sex, consistently deny it any power to recognize marriages?
Andy – “Ron Paul has stated that he only believes in states rights as opposed to centralization of power in a national government, as in it is there is less damage if a few states go too far in restricting liberty than having the federal (or national) government go too far in restricting liberty.”
Here’s the Ron Paul quote I was referring to: “Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/08/ron-paul/the-imaginery-constitution/
Sure, you can call that ‘centralition of power’, and complain about the central government ‘imposing’ on the state government the ‘vision’ that it cannot outlaw consenting sexual acts – but that’s neither anarchist nor libertarian (nor, for that matter, even very constitutional).
“Vote totals for minor party/independent candidates was up in general in 2016. Jill Stein got over 1.4 million votes, and she’s not a well known or wealthy person. Evan McMullin got over 700,000 votes, and he jumped in the race very late and only qualified for the ballot in 10 states. Darrell Castle got over 200,000 votes, which is a record in terms of raw votes for the Constitution Party”
Whether vote totals for minor or independent partie were ‘up’ depends on what one compares them to. Castle got about 3,000 votes more than the CP’s historical high; Stein got about 1/2 of the Greens’ historical high. (There’s nothing to compare Evan McMormon to.)
In contrast, the Libertarian ticket got about 3x its previous record, or 4x the highest vote for an LP ticket not headed by Gary Johnson.
Ron Paul has stated that he only believes in states rights as opposed to centralization of power in a national government, as in it is there is less damage if a few states go too far in restricting liberty than having the federal (or national) government go too far in restricting liberty.
Note that Ron Paul took the correct libertarian view on gay marriage, as in the the government should not license marriage in the first place, and he defended legalized prostitution (while running in the Republican primaries), which is something I recall Johnson & Weld not being bold enough to do last year.
Andy – “Tell All Your Small Govt Libertarian Friends – Ron Paul Is An Anarchist!”
Really? How many anarchists believe states have “rights”, including the right to regulate their citizens’ sex lives?
“Just Some Random Guy
January 10, 2017 at 01:55
‘It is much harder to get votes in the Republican primaries than it is in the general election.’
It’s much harder to get votes in the Republican primaries than it is for a Republican in the general election. It’s still much easier to get votes in the Republican primary than it is for a non-Democrat, non-Republican to in the general election. Unless there’s a tiny field in the primary, people don’t coalesce around the ‘top 2’ anywhere near as closely as they do in the general election.”
Most of Ron Paul’s support in the Republican primaries did not come from rank-and-file Republicans. Most of Ron Paul’s support came from Libertarians and small “l” libertarians, independents, previous non-voters, Constitution Party folks, and even some who had been Greens or Democrats.
The fact that Ron Paul got as many votes as he did in the Republicans primaries given where most of his support came from, and given that a lot of his supporters were not already registered Republicans, which meant that in order to vote for him in a lot of states, they had to switch their voter registration to Republican, is impressive. Also, lots of the public does not even really pay attention to politics until AFTER the primaries are over, and given that the primaries are held over several months, a lot of people lose their motivation to vote in the states that have later primaries because by that point it is usually known who is going to win (as was the case in 2008 and in 2012).
It is much easier to get votes in the general election than in the primaries. Voter turn out is much higher in the general election than in the primaries, and there are no restrictions of how a person is registered limiting for whom they can cast a vote (as opposed to states that require people to be registered as Republicans to vote in the Republican primaries).
Vote totals for minor party/independent candidates was up in general in 2016. Jill Stein got over 1.4 million votes, and she’s not a well known or wealthy person. Evan McMullin got over 700,000 votes, and he jumped in the race very late and only qualified for the ballot in 10 states. Darrell Castle got over 200,000 votes, which is a record in terms of raw votes for the Constitution Party (I’m not sure as to whether or not he also broke the record for percent of the vote, but if he did not, he probably came close to it), and he ran on a shoe string budget, and he was only on the ballot in 24 states. Bernie Sanders got a lot of write in votes in the general election, and he was not even running.
The dynamics of the 2016 election was that the Libertarian Party was pretty much guaranteed to get more votes than average regardless of who we ran.
“Votes in a primary are not even remotely comparable to votes in the general election. A better comparison would be Ron Paul’s run as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, though you’d have to figure out a way to compensate for the fact he wasn’t on as many ballots.”
There are lots of factors at play in vote totals. When Ron Paul ran back in 1988 the party came into the election season in worse shape ballot access wise than during Gary Johnson’s runs. There was no internet back in 1988. Not as many people knew what the a libertarian was, or had heard of the Libertarian Party back in 1988. Ron Paul was former Congressman in 1988, but when he ran in 2008 and 2012 he ran as a sitting Congressman (which meant that he was harder to ignore).
You have to examine the circumstances when comparing vote totals.
Tell All Your Small Govt Libertarian Friends – Ron Paul Is An Anarchist!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcWPji8fXwU
Is Ron Paul an Anarchist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wOfhejPs08
“Tony From Long Island
January 10, 2017 at 09:33
Saturn: ‘ . . . .Ron Paul ran in ’08 and ’12 as a hardcore libertarian and won a lot of votes. . . . . ‘
No. He ran as a Republican with some libertarian positions. That is a completely different than running as an actual LP candidate.”
Ron Paul ran in the Republican primaries on a platform that was more libertarian than the platforms that Bob Barr and Gary Johnson ran under in the Libertarian Party.
Also, Ron Paul has been a Life Member of the Libertarian Party since the 1980’s, and he was widely referred to as being a libertarian while running in the Republican primaries.
“Plus – Ron Paul is not a ‘hardcore libertarian.”‘
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This is coming from a guy who wouldn’t know a libertarian principle if it violated the NAP and bit him on the ass.
Saturn: ” . . . .Ron Paul ran in ’08 and ’12 as a hardcore libertarian and won a lot of votes. . . . . ”
No. He ran as a Republican with some libertarian positions. That is a completely different than running as an actual LP candidate.
Plus – Ron Paul is not a “hardcore libertarian.” So, if Andy’s question (or statement) was ” . . . .You have zero data to back up the assumption that a hardcore libertarian can’t get lots of votes. . . .” using Ron Paul to back it up fails since Dr. Paul 1) was not an LP candidate in 2012 and 2) is not a “hardcore” libertarian (ala Daryl Perry)
At the same time, other than his position on Abortion (and that nagging racist issue) I admire Dr. Paul a great deal.
It is much harder to get votes in the Republican primaries than it is in the general election.
It’s much harder to get votes in the Republican primaries than it is for a Republican in the general election. It’s still much easier to get votes in the Republican primary than it is for a non-Democrat, non-Republican to in the general election. Unless there’s a tiny field in the primary, people don’t coalesce around the “top 2” anywhere near as closely as they do in the general election.
Votes in a primary are not even remotely comparable to votes in the general election. A better comparison would be Ron Paul’s run as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, though you’d have to figure out a way to compensate for the fact he wasn’t on as many ballots.
Should read, “Johnson” above.
It is much harder to get votes in the Republican primaries than it is in the general election. Voter turn out is traditionally lower in primaries. Quite a few states only allow registered Republicans to vote in Republican primaries. Less people pay attention to primaries. The primary field is crowded with more big names. The states that have late primaries tend to get even lower turn out because everyone already knows who is going to win by then.
So Ron Paul’s Republican primary performance was more impressive than Gary Johnson’s general election performance, and also keep in mind that Gary Johnson’s primary campaign was a blip on the radar screen.
Ron Paul ran a pretty hardcore libertarian campaign even though he ran as a Republican. He called for completely ending the War on Drugs (he even defended legalized heroin on stage at a Republican debate), abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing, pulling the military out of foreign nations, withdrawing from the United Nations, repealing all gun control laws, etc.. He even talked about jury nullification a few times.
Ron Paul ran a more libertarian campaign in the Republican primaries than Gary JoHanson ran in the Libertarian Party.
No, he ran in the Republican primaries, so votes are not comparable because the “lesser evil” worries don’t apply in the same way, particularly in the early primaries. And, not to say that Gary Johnson was any kind of hardcore libertarian, but he did get more votes in the 2012 and 2016 general elections than Ron Paul got in the 2008 and 2012 primaries.
It’s also untrue that Ron Paul ran as a hardcore libertarian. See http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2007/12/teflon-libertarian-moderate.html for a list of some of the issues on which he deviated from radical libertarian positions. Indeed, much of his advertising in the Republican primaries emphasized his positions on abortion and immigration, which are at odds with most libertarians and acknowledge a role for government in solving those particular problems (whereas most hardcore libertarians either don’t see them as problems at all or foresee non-governmental solutions).
@ William Saturn
Ron Paul ran in ’08 and ’12 as a hardcore libertarian and won a lot of votes.
And did so under the REPUBLICAN banner, giving himself significantly better exposure than any Libertarian (capital L) candidate could hope to get in those elections. I don’t think performance in a Republican primary is particularly comparable to performance by the Libertarian Party’s candidate in the national election.
“Ron Paul ran in ’08 and ’12 as a hardcore libertarian and won a lot of votes.”
Ron Paul received 1.2 million votes in the primaries in 2008, and 2.1 million votes in the 2012 primaries.
Gary Johnson received almost 4.5 million votes in the 2016 general election.
And Paul’s campaign promoted positions on abortion and immigration that most Libertarians disagree with – Gary Johnson was much closer to the Libertarian positions on abortion and immigration.
Ron Paul ran in ’08 and ’12 as a hardcore libertarian and won a lot of votes.
Gary Johnson also ran under the easiest set of circumstances under which the Libertarian Party has ever run a presidential ticket both times.
Also, it defeats the purpose of the Libertarian Party running a presidential ticket if the people on the ticket are not really libertarians.
Andy: ” . . . .The circumstances of the presidential elections of 2008, 2012, and especially 2016, are the most favorable conditions that the Libertarian Party has run a presidential ticket, and the party blew each time by nominating tickets that do not really represent the libertarian philosophy, and that otherwise had poorly run, and non-inspiring campaigns. . . . . ”
And yet that candidate (with the exception of the 2008 abomination) won more votes than any other LP candidate by a MILE. Yeah . . .he was terrible . . .
(yes, andy, he had flaws.)
Andy ” . . . .You have zero data to back up the assumption that a hardcore libertarian can’t get lots of votes. . . . ”
How about 44 years of election results?
“You have zero data to back up the assumption that a hardcore libertarian can’t get lots of votes.” However, you do have such data that a hardcore libertarian can get lots of votes?
Andy, your plan is to find a candidate who “really represents” the libertarian philosophy, has a ton of experienced and talented (and mostly volunteer) staffers to run an effective campaign , and has charisma to charm both Libertarian delegates and the non-Libertarian voter. That’s a tall order to find before the 2020 convention. My sincere best wishes in finding him or her.
“ATBAFT
January 9, 2017 at 13:29
Dr. Ruwart would be a candidate like David Bergland: knows libertarianism inside and out (not to say some “real” libertarians wouldn’t disagree with them on some fine points).”
You have zero data to back up the assumption that a hardcore libertarian can’t get lots of votes.
David Bergland was a long time ago. He jumped in the race late, apparently during the national convention weekend, with no campaign infrastructure. The party still had not been around that long (less than 13 years) in 1984. There was no internet back then. Few people knew what a libertarian was or had even heard the word.
The circumstances of every election are different.
The circumstances of the presidential elections of 2008, 2012, and especially 2016, are the most favorable conditions that the Libertarian Party has run a presidential ticket, and the party blew each time by nominating tickets that do not really represent the libertarian philosophy, and that otherwise had poorly run, and non-inspiring campaigns.
Dr. Ruwart would be a candidate like David Bergland: knows libertarianism inside and out (not to say some “real” libertarians wouldn’t disagree with them on some fine points). Like Bergland, she probably wouldn’t get 500,000 votes unless $10 million could be raised (then she’d do about as well as Dr. Stein). Does the LP want candidates who can defend every plank of the platform, or candidates like Johnson/Weld who can’t explain (or disagree with) major parts of the platform, or candidates who advocate gradualist measures that can realistically be implemented if a plurality of voters agree? Is the LP the Party of principle, the Party of winning elections, or the Party that actually moves American society in a libertarian direction. If the answer is “All Three!” let’s hear your plan.
Holy Crap! Andy and I agree on something. Bob Barr was a dumpster fire. Although I probably share Senor Dlugos’s opinion on Dr. Ruwart, I would have greatly preferred her to Barr.
if we all just planted a tree . . . .
Oh yeah . . .AD . . stop paying for your porn! But on the other hand . . . that’s capitalism for ya!
respectability politics comprised of ppl who pay for their porn…not surprising
Other presenters include civil rights attorney Daniel Sheehan; Foster Gamble; John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man;” Joel Garbon; Jennifer Margulis; Nassim Haramein; and Will Wilkinson.
AWESOME GROUP OF SPEAKERS! Affordable tickets too.
The only Deep Dive Intensive Mary I know does webcam exclusives for me every Wednesday night.
Anthony Dlugos said: “Dear god this almost became our nominee for President”
It is not as though the person who did become the nominee that year, Bob Barr, was any good. Barr was a terrible candidate for the LP.
dear god, people like Anthony Dlugos get to vote for the nominee…
“Dr. Ruwart’s presentation and follow-up “deep dive intensive” will explicate how, “as children, we learned the principle of non-aggression, which we routinely practice in our daily lives. However, we abandon these principles when we interact group-to-group, usually through government, without even being aware of it… This interactive lecture will demonstrate how we’ve been manipulated to act against our most cherished beliefs, helping to create war and poverty in the process.”
Dear god this almost became our nominee for President