Michael, talking to Paulie now, we want:
A 2 minute video script, should include:
3.6 trillion vs 3.7 trillion budgets
Obamas war vs Bush war?
Bail outs across the board
Who backs both parties? (not sure how to present that).
(things like this, where the two parties are the same.)
We are going to include a website and a sharable jpg to match.
We need images, and just ideas, I can put everything together this weekend.
So a three pronged attack with video, website, and sharable images for facebook etc.
John Jay Myers @ 28 I’m on board. How do you want to proceed?
Robert Capozzi
March 17, 2011
jjm28, yes, “something is rotten in R & D Denmark” sounds like a winner to me. Brian Holtz has some nifty bumper stickers that wonderfully illustrate just that point.
Building top-of-mind awareness generally involves one meta-theme, sometimes backed up with a few illustrations and an invitation to “look closer.” The meta theme that something is very wrong with the “2 party system” and a third, reasonable, responsible, uncorrupted voice is vitally important now would be an excellent invitation to look closer at the LP.
Selecting key issues to illustrate such a theme.
Off the top…
* If you think taxes are too high, but you’re OK with gay marriage, you just might be a L.
* If you think the deficit is a clear and present danger, but you’re OK with adults smoking pot, you just might be a L.
* If you think government is way too big, but you think the Iraq War was a huge mistake, you just might be a L.
etc.
[props to Jeff Foxworthy]
Or maybe something involving R2D2…
Do we REALLY want R2D2 in charge?
____
Or, we can posit obscure theories about self government and mock yoga… đ
Also, we need to target libertarians first, but that doesn’t mean we have to be single minded in our focus on just that.
Mainly it means we should not turn off libertarians in our attempts to gain or awaken other groups.
I am behind the wall of shame because people are paying for it, and I don’t think it is as much an attack as just the truth.
I also think that we needed to give the Republicans something to think about.
That being said if I were to do something on that scale, it would probably be something that illustrates how the two parties are the same, and that if you were really interested in change on some of the key issues, the libertarian party would be your only alternative.
Maybe I will start working on that now, who wants to help?
Robert Capozzi
March 17, 2011
a25: Not everyone in the Ron Paul camp agrees with Ron Paul 100% on every issue.
me: Great. I hope I’ve not given the impression that the RP community is not target rich for Ls. Of course it is! I do think it’s a mistake to view the LP as an exclusively RP Party, just as I think it’s a mistake to view it exclusively as a Randian or Rothbardian party.
Andy
March 17, 2011
The people I met at Ron Paul meetings fall into the following categories (as far as their political backgrounds):
In no particular order:
1) Libertarians. Many were current Libertarian Party members. A lot of them were members of the Libertarian Party who had let their memberships expire and/or who had not been active in the party in years (mostly due to frustration and burn out and thinking that the LP wasn’t going anywhere). Others were small “l” libertarians in that they were already libertarians but had never joined the Libertarian Party.
2) Independents. People who were registered to vote, but who were not aligned with either the Democrats or the Republicans.
3) Non-voters. These were people who either never voted, or hadn’t voted in many years. They were woken up and inspired to get active because of Ron Paul. A common phrase among them was, “Dr. Paul cured my apathy.”
4) Former leftists. Yes, that’s right, former leftists. I met several people who told me that they were Greens and a few were even Democrats. They were drawn to Ron Paul due to his anti-war and anti-police state stances. These people were beginning to understand free market principles as well.
5) Constitution Party. Yes, there were Constitution Party supporters, but there weren’t as many of them as there were from the Libertarian Party.
6) Republicans. These were Republicans who were already pro-liberty, or they had just gotten involved in the pro-liberty movement because of Ron Paul. Among these Republicans some of them were open to minor parties, but others were convinced that the only way to get things done was to go through the Republican Party.
I think that the largest groups were Libertarians/libertarians, independents, and non-voters.
Andy
March 17, 2011
“Some of RPâs views might be a turn-off to broad cross-sections of the prospective L universe.”
Not everyone in the Ron Paul camp agrees with Ron Paul 100% on every issue. There’s a relatively wide spectrum of views from the libertarian quadrant among Ron Paul supporters. I’ve attended a bunch of Ron Paul Meet Ups and Campaign for Liberty meetings so I know this as a fact. For example, I met several people at these meetings who told me that they are pro-choice on abortion, and they know that Ron is pro-life but they support him anyway. And so on and so forth…
Andy
March 17, 2011
“Many Ls by their nature are anti-political or apolitical. TK has moved into that camp, it appears.”
Yet for some strange reason, he continues to linger around here even though he’s supposedly sworn off electoral politics.:)
Robert Capozzi
March 17, 2011
Yes, it seems very discerning to target a group who self-IDs as “L.” I’m not sure there is a “demographic” that is L, as that implies that Ls fit an identifiable slice of the pop. Another term I’ve seen is “psychographic,” but even there, is there a L psychographic? None that I’m aware of. The anxiety-ridden? đ
Many Ls by their nature are anti-political or apolitical. TK has moved into that camp, it appears.
Some self-IDed Ls are R, either Ron Paul Rs or hold-your-nose Rs or even go-through-the-motion, lesser-of-2-evil Rs. Some might be Ds, too. Many might be Is.
It strikes me that we already try to get these sorts of folks with our limited resources. I sometimes get the sense that JJM wants the LP to more aligned with the Ron Paul narrative. At the moment, the RP narrative seems to have its most influence, but I do wonder whether it too is somewhat self-limiting for 2 reasons: (1) RP supporters support the man, and are likely to do so for the next cycle and (2) the RP message is *A* L message, but not the only one. Some of RP’s views might be a turn-off to broad cross-sections of the prospective L universe. For ex., the catastrophizing, the gold buggery, the revisionism, the neo-Bircherisms, and of course the pro-liferism. These views more align with the Constitution Party than the LP. Of course, there are overlaps, but whether the LP should be the kinder, gentler, more modern in attitude CP is not obvious.
I do wonder whether JJM supported the Wall of Shame? Targeting CPAC and Washington Post online readers doesn’t seem to line up with his message….
Andy
March 17, 2011
“John Jay Myers // Mar 16, 2011 at 10:09 pm
The bottom line to this video is that the LP needs to appeal first to a very key demographicâŚ. people who consider themselves libertarian.
If we canât appeal to that set of people, and get them involved, then we will never get anyone involved.
We could grow this group by at least 10 times conservatively, by simply gaining libertarians, at that point we could take the next steps.”
John Jay Meyers hit the nail on the head here. If the Libertarian Party can’t even capture the majority of the vote among libertarians, how can we expect it to get anywhere? The Libertarian Party could easily multiply in size right now if even a small fraction of the self described small “l” libertarians joined the party as dues paying members.
This video illustrates a pretty typical distribution of opinion on college campuses, which I also found doing hundreds of events like this, most between 1997 and 2002, some as far back as 1992 and a small handful more recently. If the LP can?t connect with this audience, we?re just not trying.
The bottom line to this video is that the LP needs to appeal first to a very key demographic…. people who consider themselves libertarian.
If we can’t appeal to that set of people, and get them involved, then we will never get anyone involved.
We could grow this group by at least 10 times conservatively, by simply gaining libertarians, at that point we could take the next steps.
Michael Seebeck
March 16, 2011
“I donât necessarily believe we need to be screaming âstates rightsâ on issues that are none of governments business, we should just say that.”
John, we shouldn’t be screaming “states’ rights” at all, because that is complete fiction in the first place. States do not have rights, they have reserved powers. Only the People have both reserved powers and reserved rights. See also the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Frankly, when it comes to the rights of the People, they are superior to and supersede all claimed powers of government at any level, because the right to consent to be governed is the derivative of all government power. Yes, that consent should be renewed and reviewed on a case-by-case basis in a binding manner (not polls!) and the technology exists to make it that way, and in a lot of cases it frankly should be revoked.
The LP needs to push the “Power to the People” mantra, in its own way, because 1) It’s true, 2) it’s in vogue right now, and 3) it is really what the LP stands for anyway.
JT
March 16, 2011
Me: “Ron Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act that would make it so that federal judges canât overrule state legislatures on the issue.â
Andy: “Ron Paul also said that he doesnât believe people should have to get a license to get married. Ron doesnât think that itâs a federal issue, which it is not. ”
Do you think I was condemning him with my comment? I wasn’t. I was just stating a fact.
RP supports DOMA and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act (actually, this is the measure that would prohibit the above, not DOMA). He doesn’t think one state government should have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, and he doesn’t think defining marriage is an issue for the federal judges to rule on.
âI supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congressâ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”
I disagree with RP’s argument here, but he’s still coming from a place that favors decentralization.
Me: âI think such laws violate Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down anyway, but at least RP makes his cases based on devolving federal power.â
Andy: “There shouldnât be any laws regarding who marries who at the state or federal level.”
Do you think that contradicts what I said? Maybe you were just adding something to it.
I meant I think the federal courts should be able to strike down state laws that allow some people to get married and not others, which I believe violate Amendment 14 of the Constitution. I don’t think Congress or state legislatures should pass laws on marriage either. The federal judiciary does have the power to enforce the Constitution when state government laws violate it, and I think that’s a good thing. The Constitution doesn’t give federal judges the power to strike down ALL state marriage laws, but it does give them the power to strike down ones that are applied unequally.
FKC
March 16, 2011
Target everyone, especially people under 30.
Andy
March 16, 2011
“Myers implies that Paul is ‘more’ L than some Ls,”
Ron Paul is more libertarian than most of the people who sought the LP’s Presidential nomination in the last election.
Andy
March 16, 2011
“JT // Mar 16, 2011 at 9:30 am
Ron Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act that would make it so that federal judges canât overrule state legislatures on the issue.”
Ron Paul also said that he doesn’t believe people should have to get a license to get married. Ron doesn’t think that it’s a federal issue, which it is not.
“I think such laws violate Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down anyway, but at least RP makes his cases based on devolving federal power.”
There shouldn’t be any laws regarding who marries who at the state or federal level.
I didn’t say it was my test. You are the one bringing up plumb crap and trying to make something out of nonsense. I figure if someone wants to work on an issue with me that’s fine.
Right now I am working across party lines on an issue. As long as it is a success, then it doesn’t matter who helped.
Robert Capozzi
March 16, 2011
btw, mhw, there was a “radical” Rothbardian on the 08 Platcom who was also an atty. As I recall, he had a problem with this enacted platform language:
” We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.”
I– a moderate, centrist, TAAAList, L — supported this language, although I could have lived with a platform without it.
Are you saying this absolutist Rothbardian L would flunk your test, and I’d pass your plumbline test? Seems kinda just, dunno, wrong on some level….
Robert Capozzi
March 16, 2011
mhw 8, hmm, jury nullification is always an option for someone on the jury. You’d need to be more specific for me to respond…
Robert Capozzi
March 16, 2011
sw, people are individuals, yes, but reaching people requires a sense of business economics. Promoting to self-selected groups of individuals requires thinking about how a message will reach them for maximum impact. Some self-selected groups are likely low-priority “targets” is a reality. Ron Paul does this, too. His direct mail operation likely doesn’t “target” say, teacher’s union members, and likely does target, say, gold investor newsletters.
IMO, that says nothing about “individualism.” Walk us through why you think otherwise…
Steven Wilson
March 16, 2011
I think target is a bad form for anyone to take if they believe in the idea of individualism.
Act a certain way and the human will decide for themselves if there is merit enough to follow. It serves no purpose to function as a tent party when you focus in on the individual and call that ride liberty.
Ron Paul is about the individual and the family. That is why people follow him. He is the real deal.
Our LNC is a joke. One half book club, one half Robert’s rule checklist.
Many here share your message exactly the way you have expressed it.
Thank You!
Robert Capozzi
March 16, 2011
I used the marriage issue as one example, sorry to’ve if it distracts from the IMO bigger issue: issue latitude and tolerance for a RANGE of L positions vs. a plumbline approach.
If there IS a plumbline, I’d like to see it. Then at least I can assess whether I agree with it or not. It’s really frustrating when plumb liners don’t produce what they THINK is the plumb line, much less whether one-size-fits-all L-ism is a codified reality.
My guess is that plumb liners and absolutists must recognize that their position is weak, so they dissemble and obfuscate about a non-existent, unspecified plumb line. If they are so sure about their view, let’s see it!
Or, give me an alternative interpretation…I’m open to a different interpretation!
JT
March 16, 2011
Ron Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act that would make it so that federal judges can’t overrule state legislatures on the issue. I think such laws violate Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down anyway, but at least RP makes his cases based on devolving federal power.
On the other hand, he does oppose a marriage amendment to the Constitution.
In my opinion Paul thinks that marriage is none of governments business, and neither is religion.
While in office he takes the view that it should be a state issue, because he holds a federal seat. Some call that a cop out. Fine.
I don’t necessarily believe we need to be screaming “states rights” on issues that are none of governments business, we should just say that.
But at the same time RP seems to always make his case against government pretty clear.
Robert Capozzi
March 16, 2011
I agree with most of this, and I don’t disagree with any of it.
Still, there is another, less obvious, underlying cause for intra-L friction: amplitude and tolerance. How far away from the status quo does an L need to advocate his/her views, and how much tolerance do we have for deviations from the mean?
Myers implies that Paul is “more” L than some Ls, yet Paul takes a federalist view of marriage. Some Ls find THAT to be unL. Others don’t. The real question IMO is how much tolerance do we have for Ls who take a position on complex questions such as these.
John I am finishing up another project now and then I’ll see what I can do. Might be able to get something out of me tomorrow.
Michael, talking to Paulie now, we want:
A 2 minute video script, should include:
3.6 trillion vs 3.7 trillion budgets
Obamas war vs Bush war?
Bail outs across the board
Who backs both parties? (not sure how to present that).
(things like this, where the two parties are the same.)
We are going to include a website and a sharable jpg to match.
We need images, and just ideas, I can put everything together this weekend.
So a three pronged attack with video, website, and sharable images for facebook etc.
Should be fun.
John Jay Myers @ 28 I’m on board. How do you want to proceed?
jjm28, yes, “something is rotten in R & D Denmark” sounds like a winner to me. Brian Holtz has some nifty bumper stickers that wonderfully illustrate just that point.
Building top-of-mind awareness generally involves one meta-theme, sometimes backed up with a few illustrations and an invitation to “look closer.” The meta theme that something is very wrong with the “2 party system” and a third, reasonable, responsible, uncorrupted voice is vitally important now would be an excellent invitation to look closer at the LP.
Selecting key issues to illustrate such a theme.
Off the top…
* If you think taxes are too high, but you’re OK with gay marriage, you just might be a L.
* If you think the deficit is a clear and present danger, but you’re OK with adults smoking pot, you just might be a L.
* If you think government is way too big, but you think the Iraq War was a huge mistake, you just might be a L.
etc.
[props to Jeff Foxworthy]
Or maybe something involving R2D2…
Do we REALLY want R2D2 in charge?
____
Or, we can posit obscure theories about self government and mock yoga… đ
Also, we need to target libertarians first, but that doesn’t mean we have to be single minded in our focus on just that.
Mainly it means we should not turn off libertarians in our attempts to gain or awaken other groups.
I am behind the wall of shame because people are paying for it, and I don’t think it is as much an attack as just the truth.
I also think that we needed to give the Republicans something to think about.
That being said if I were to do something on that scale, it would probably be something that illustrates how the two parties are the same, and that if you were really interested in change on some of the key issues, the libertarian party would be your only alternative.
Maybe I will start working on that now, who wants to help?
a25: Not everyone in the Ron Paul camp agrees with Ron Paul 100% on every issue.
me: Great. I hope I’ve not given the impression that the RP community is not target rich for Ls. Of course it is! I do think it’s a mistake to view the LP as an exclusively RP Party, just as I think it’s a mistake to view it exclusively as a Randian or Rothbardian party.
The people I met at Ron Paul meetings fall into the following categories (as far as their political backgrounds):
In no particular order:
1) Libertarians. Many were current Libertarian Party members. A lot of them were members of the Libertarian Party who had let their memberships expire and/or who had not been active in the party in years (mostly due to frustration and burn out and thinking that the LP wasn’t going anywhere). Others were small “l” libertarians in that they were already libertarians but had never joined the Libertarian Party.
2) Independents. People who were registered to vote, but who were not aligned with either the Democrats or the Republicans.
3) Non-voters. These were people who either never voted, or hadn’t voted in many years. They were woken up and inspired to get active because of Ron Paul. A common phrase among them was, “Dr. Paul cured my apathy.”
4) Former leftists. Yes, that’s right, former leftists. I met several people who told me that they were Greens and a few were even Democrats. They were drawn to Ron Paul due to his anti-war and anti-police state stances. These people were beginning to understand free market principles as well.
5) Constitution Party. Yes, there were Constitution Party supporters, but there weren’t as many of them as there were from the Libertarian Party.
6) Republicans. These were Republicans who were already pro-liberty, or they had just gotten involved in the pro-liberty movement because of Ron Paul. Among these Republicans some of them were open to minor parties, but others were convinced that the only way to get things done was to go through the Republican Party.
I think that the largest groups were Libertarians/libertarians, independents, and non-voters.
“Some of RPâs views might be a turn-off to broad cross-sections of the prospective L universe.”
Not everyone in the Ron Paul camp agrees with Ron Paul 100% on every issue. There’s a relatively wide spectrum of views from the libertarian quadrant among Ron Paul supporters. I’ve attended a bunch of Ron Paul Meet Ups and Campaign for Liberty meetings so I know this as a fact. For example, I met several people at these meetings who told me that they are pro-choice on abortion, and they know that Ron is pro-life but they support him anyway. And so on and so forth…
“Many Ls by their nature are anti-political or apolitical. TK has moved into that camp, it appears.”
Yet for some strange reason, he continues to linger around here even though he’s supposedly sworn off electoral politics.:)
Yes, it seems very discerning to target a group who self-IDs as “L.” I’m not sure there is a “demographic” that is L, as that implies that Ls fit an identifiable slice of the pop. Another term I’ve seen is “psychographic,” but even there, is there a L psychographic? None that I’m aware of. The anxiety-ridden? đ
Many Ls by their nature are anti-political or apolitical. TK has moved into that camp, it appears.
Some self-IDed Ls are R, either Ron Paul Rs or hold-your-nose Rs or even go-through-the-motion, lesser-of-2-evil Rs. Some might be Ds, too. Many might be Is.
It strikes me that we already try to get these sorts of folks with our limited resources. I sometimes get the sense that JJM wants the LP to more aligned with the Ron Paul narrative. At the moment, the RP narrative seems to have its most influence, but I do wonder whether it too is somewhat self-limiting for 2 reasons: (1) RP supporters support the man, and are likely to do so for the next cycle and (2) the RP message is *A* L message, but not the only one. Some of RP’s views might be a turn-off to broad cross-sections of the prospective L universe. For ex., the catastrophizing, the gold buggery, the revisionism, the neo-Bircherisms, and of course the pro-liferism. These views more align with the Constitution Party than the LP. Of course, there are overlaps, but whether the LP should be the kinder, gentler, more modern in attitude CP is not obvious.
I do wonder whether JJM supported the Wall of Shame? Targeting CPAC and Washington Post online readers doesn’t seem to line up with his message….
“John Jay Myers // Mar 16, 2011 at 10:09 pm
The bottom line to this video is that the LP needs to appeal first to a very key demographicâŚ. people who consider themselves libertarian.
If we canât appeal to that set of people, and get them involved, then we will never get anyone involved.
We could grow this group by at least 10 times conservatively, by simply gaining libertarians, at that point we could take the next steps.”
John Jay Meyers hit the nail on the head here. If the Libertarian Party can’t even capture the majority of the vote among libertarians, how can we expect it to get anywhere? The Libertarian Party could easily multiply in size right now if even a small fraction of the self described small “l” libertarians joined the party as dues paying members.
Excellent point.
As I said at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/03/lee-wrights-%E2%80%98nosy-neighbor%E2%80%99-foreign-policy-creates-enemies/
This video illustrates a pretty typical distribution of opinion on college campuses, which I also found doing hundreds of events like this, most between 1997 and 2002, some as far back as 1992 and a small handful more recently. If the LP can?t connect with this audience, we?re just not trying.
The bottom line to this video is that the LP needs to appeal first to a very key demographic…. people who consider themselves libertarian.
If we can’t appeal to that set of people, and get them involved, then we will never get anyone involved.
We could grow this group by at least 10 times conservatively, by simply gaining libertarians, at that point we could take the next steps.
“I donât necessarily believe we need to be screaming âstates rightsâ on issues that are none of governments business, we should just say that.”
John, we shouldn’t be screaming “states’ rights” at all, because that is complete fiction in the first place. States do not have rights, they have reserved powers. Only the People have both reserved powers and reserved rights. See also the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Frankly, when it comes to the rights of the People, they are superior to and supersede all claimed powers of government at any level, because the right to consent to be governed is the derivative of all government power. Yes, that consent should be renewed and reviewed on a case-by-case basis in a binding manner (not polls!) and the technology exists to make it that way, and in a lot of cases it frankly should be revoked.
The LP needs to push the “Power to the People” mantra, in its own way, because 1) It’s true, 2) it’s in vogue right now, and 3) it is really what the LP stands for anyway.
Me: “Ron Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act that would make it so that federal judges canât overrule state legislatures on the issue.â
Andy: “Ron Paul also said that he doesnât believe people should have to get a license to get married. Ron doesnât think that itâs a federal issue, which it is not. ”
Do you think I was condemning him with my comment? I wasn’t. I was just stating a fact.
RP supports DOMA and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act (actually, this is the measure that would prohibit the above, not DOMA). He doesn’t think one state government should have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, and he doesn’t think defining marriage is an issue for the federal judges to rule on.
âI supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congressâ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/02/ron-paul-condems-obamas-decision-to-abandon-doma/
I disagree with RP’s argument here, but he’s still coming from a place that favors decentralization.
Me: âI think such laws violate Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down anyway, but at least RP makes his cases based on devolving federal power.â
Andy: “There shouldnât be any laws regarding who marries who at the state or federal level.”
Do you think that contradicts what I said? Maybe you were just adding something to it.
I meant I think the federal courts should be able to strike down state laws that allow some people to get married and not others, which I believe violate Amendment 14 of the Constitution. I don’t think Congress or state legislatures should pass laws on marriage either. The federal judiciary does have the power to enforce the Constitution when state government laws violate it, and I think that’s a good thing. The Constitution doesn’t give federal judges the power to strike down ALL state marriage laws, but it does give them the power to strike down ones that are applied unequally.
Target everyone, especially people under 30.
“Myers implies that Paul is ‘more’ L than some Ls,”
Ron Paul is more libertarian than most of the people who sought the LP’s Presidential nomination in the last election.
“JT // Mar 16, 2011 at 9:30 am
Ron Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act that would make it so that federal judges canât overrule state legislatures on the issue.”
Ron Paul also said that he doesn’t believe people should have to get a license to get married. Ron doesn’t think that it’s a federal issue, which it is not.
“I think such laws violate Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down anyway, but at least RP makes his cases based on devolving federal power.”
There shouldn’t be any laws regarding who marries who at the state or federal level.
I didn’t say it was my test. You are the one bringing up plumb crap and trying to make something out of nonsense. I figure if someone wants to work on an issue with me that’s fine.
Right now I am working across party lines on an issue. As long as it is a success, then it doesn’t matter who helped.
btw, mhw, there was a “radical” Rothbardian on the 08 Platcom who was also an atty. As I recall, he had a problem with this enacted platform language:
” We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.”
I– a moderate, centrist, TAAAList, L — supported this language, although I could have lived with a platform without it.
Are you saying this absolutist Rothbardian L would flunk your test, and I’d pass your plumbline test? Seems kinda just, dunno, wrong on some level….
mhw 8, hmm, jury nullification is always an option for someone on the jury. You’d need to be more specific for me to respond…
sw, people are individuals, yes, but reaching people requires a sense of business economics. Promoting to self-selected groups of individuals requires thinking about how a message will reach them for maximum impact. Some self-selected groups are likely low-priority “targets” is a reality. Ron Paul does this, too. His direct mail operation likely doesn’t “target” say, teacher’s union members, and likely does target, say, gold investor newsletters.
IMO, that says nothing about “individualism.” Walk us through why you think otherwise…
I think target is a bad form for anyone to take if they believe in the idea of individualism.
Act a certain way and the human will decide for themselves if there is merit enough to follow. It serves no purpose to function as a tent party when you focus in on the individual and call that ride liberty.
Ron Paul is about the individual and the family. That is why people follow him. He is the real deal.
Our LNC is a joke. One half book club, one half Robert’s rule checklist.
Robert if people disagree with Jury Nullification then they don’t make the cut. Okay? Howz that!
I liked it too.
JJM,
Excellent video!
Many here share your message exactly the way you have expressed it.
Thank You!
I used the marriage issue as one example, sorry to’ve if it distracts from the IMO bigger issue: issue latitude and tolerance for a RANGE of L positions vs. a plumbline approach.
If there IS a plumbline, I’d like to see it. Then at least I can assess whether I agree with it or not. It’s really frustrating when plumb liners don’t produce what they THINK is the plumb line, much less whether one-size-fits-all L-ism is a codified reality.
My guess is that plumb liners and absolutists must recognize that their position is weak, so they dissemble and obfuscate about a non-existent, unspecified plumb line. If they are so sure about their view, let’s see it!
Or, give me an alternative interpretation…I’m open to a different interpretation!
Ron Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act that would make it so that federal judges can’t overrule state legislatures on the issue. I think such laws violate Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down anyway, but at least RP makes his cases based on devolving federal power.
On the other hand, he does oppose a marriage amendment to the Constitution.
In my opinion Paul thinks that marriage is none of governments business, and neither is religion.
While in office he takes the view that it should be a state issue, because he holds a federal seat. Some call that a cop out. Fine.
I don’t necessarily believe we need to be screaming “states rights” on issues that are none of governments business, we should just say that.
But at the same time RP seems to always make his case against government pretty clear.
I agree with most of this, and I don’t disagree with any of it.
Still, there is another, less obvious, underlying cause for intra-L friction: amplitude and tolerance. How far away from the status quo does an L need to advocate his/her views, and how much tolerance do we have for deviations from the mean?
Myers implies that Paul is “more” L than some Ls, yet Paul takes a federalist view of marriage. Some Ls find THAT to be unL. Others don’t. The real question IMO is how much tolerance do we have for Ls who take a position on complex questions such as these.
Great points made in this video. I totally agree.