As an anarchist I have two reasons for this.
First, I feel it would be less likely that the Zombie Apocalypse (otherwise known as "business as Washington DC usual") would result in the deaths of people I care about under a Ron Paul presidency. I could be wrong about that.
Second, this needs to happen in order to get energetic, involved, people to realize that politics is NOT the answer. I wish people would stop wasting their time and energy on politics and just start living free! Once Ron Paul tried and failed to get the fe(de)ral government under control (on the things it does that he wants to get under control) then maybe people would see what a waste politics really is if you value (and understand) liberty.
I'm still waiting for him to call me up to ask me to be his running-mate. My pledge would remain the same.
.
I don't want Ron Paul to be president any more than I want for there to be an office of the presidency, nor a USA government. I tend to agree with Sam Konkin's view that when it serves the interests of those in power, a libertarian will be in the White House.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul as president might at least slow down the empire, and if he lived through a whole term it might even help to shift some of the usual shite around. I have few delusions that it will happen.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny the sympathy that anarchists have for Ron Paul, but so little for politics itself. Yes, the inherent contradictions are manifest. As an anarchist who does politics, I find that it doesn't waste as much time as constant advocacy in daily life. I can run or manage a campaign and go back to living 'free' knowing that some effect or message is being conveyed on a broad general level. Any books, articles or websites that I write, just can't get that much traction.
ReplyDeleteI still won't vote.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, there are 3 possible (although not probable) outcomes to this election that I would like: President Ron Paul, President R. Lee Wrights, or everyone refuses to elect a president at all. Of those 3 possibilities I see the first as the most likely.
so far, paul is the only candidate that i can currently back without feeling like i'm doing a disservice to the pursuit of liberty. so i completely understand.
ReplyDeleteLet's try the next four years without one.
ReplyDeleteI never have had a president.
ReplyDeleteOnly article about the election worth reading. Probably won't be beat.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm going to take a break from large chunks of the internet. I just read another "Oh noes, we might get more Obama!" and my patience for American elections is now gone. Kind of missing the forest for a tree, there.
Like KenK said, yeah try four years without one. It's called placebo control. Of course the president and his election IS a placebo, so that couldn't possibly be allowed.
If only constitutions worked, I just had a good idea. Punish institutions, not their holders. The Fed has repeatedly failed to prevent problems for ordinary people. Don't just fire the chairman, put the whole institution on probation for a few years.
Of course to do that to the presidency someone would have to figure out what it is supposed to do. And I hope you'll excuse me, I have to go die laughing at the prospect of finding one.
I've outlined a scenario where a Ron Paul presidency might make a following dictatorship more likely:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thepriceofliberty.org/2011/07/04/bonneau.html
Of course I may be wrong, but I think it is worth considering.
As a practical matter even if he is elected, all his vetoes will be overridden.
The one good thing that might come out of a Paul presidency is seeing states secede from the union. A lot tougher in there if you have a Lincoln clone in office.
Oh, one other good thing. I expect the wars would be very hard to prosecute with him as C-in-C. But he'd have to watch out for a literal knife in the back...
ReplyDeleteJon Stewart: Why Is the Media Ignoring Ron Paul?
ReplyDeletehttp://gawker.com/5831167/