bg

Books of Thought

Things to expect on this blog: Austrian School economics; Libertarian politics; guns; Anglo-Saxon heathenry; and maybe the occasional rant.

Why anarchists should vote for Ron Paul (or other libertarians)

Liberty is a sliding scale, with the agora on one end and totalitarian tyranny on the other. Being a minority of people, we liberty-minded folk need to rally whatever resources we can muster to counter the march toward tyranny. We need friends and allies, and those friends and allies will be each other.

Ron Paul is one of those friends and allies. He’s not an anarchist, sure. But he’s certainly more amenable to our purposes than any other presidential candidate. Likewise, any libertarian candidate for any elected office is friendlier to our goals than any other. And you can bitch and moan about using state power against the state all you like. I’m not saying that we can or should “use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house.” I’m saying that if we’re going to manifest liberty, we should do what we can to keep government out of our way. Ron Paul and other libertarian politicians can help us do that.

If all we do is complain about NDAA, SOPA/PIPA, the Canadian Firearms Act, income taxes, and the European Parliament, tyranny will march on until we are in poverty and chains. And we’ll have to tell our children why we didn’t support those who’d shrink our government when they needed us. And all because we’d rather see government grow than use political means to shrink it. Because that’s what you’re doing when you refuse to vote. You’re silently submitting to those who will make the State more powerful, rather than those who want to bind Leviathan.

You Americans have a choice right now. Every government is working to imprison, rob, and silence its citizens (even yours). But Ron Paul has substantial momentum, and he is your best hope of getting a very powerful friend for liberty. A Ron Paul presidency will show how central banking, world policing, and the welfare-warfare-regulatory state are antithetical to the well-being of the people. Any other presidency will empower the Fed, bomb more innocent people abroad, and imprison innocent people at home. If you help Dr. Paul get elected, you’ve worked for liberty. If you don’t vote because you think one extra ballot validates the State, you’re submitting to tyranny.

"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing."

EDIT: The above being said, I still think that voting itself is tantamount to selling your soul, the slave choosing his master, etc. But if the slave can choose a master with a policy of manumission, shouldn’t he do so? In my view, if a libertarian isn’t on the ballot, don’t vote. Don’t participate if you’re being forced to choose between fascists and socialists. But if you could vote yourself free, wouldn’t you? That may very well be what voting for libertarians could be. If it isn’t, we stay slaves. But then again, if it is, we become free. It sounds like a good gamble to me.

baseballlibertarian:

You like Ron Paul, except for his foreign policy.  You might want to watch this video. 

Your troops get it!

Unite or Die: 3 Myths About Ron Paul In Iowa

uniteordie:

An amazing piece by Doug Wead:

Two recent polls show contradictory results for the upcoming Iowa caucuses.

A December 22, 2011 Rasmussen poll declared Mitt Romney the likely winner. But a day earlier a Public Policy Poll said that Ron Paul would win,

Here are three myths regarding Ron Paul…

If you’re an American who’s eligible to vote, read this, and then take appropriate action. If that means registering Republican to ensure Ron Paul wins Iowa and New Hampshire, then do so!

Ron Paul's Inaugural Address, Written by His First (and Only) Speechwriter

crankyminarchist:

In June of 1976, I was Ron Paul’s speechwriter. Shortly after I joined his staff as his newsletter writer and economic analyst, I recommended that he do what I had been doing for a year: buy a Code-A-Phone telephone answering machine and make a weekly 3-minute recording for people in his districts to call. He could send the tape to his office in the district, where the machine would be set up at a local phone number. Residents could call it for free. He thought this was a good idea. So began his weekly speeches.

I wrote his first talk. He later told me that he didn’t like reading a script written by anyone else, so he had decided to record his own. As far as I know, that was the last speech anyone ever wrote for him.

He used that machine for the next two-and-a-half years. After his defeat in November 1976, he posted a weekly phone message. The weekly report became a tool for a comeback. In 1978, he defeated the man who had barely defeated him (268 votes) in 1976.

So, having been his only speechwriter, I will now offer my second speech that he will not deliver.”

read the rest of this speech here—it’s EPIC. full stop.

and I hope like mad that in Jan 2013 Ron Paul will deliver, if not this speech (given his dislike of reading scripts he himself has not penned), then one very like it.

Fantastic speech. I’d love to see it given.

riverofliberty:

NDAA & SOPA are some scary shit.

If you’ve never heard of them, please watch this quick YouTube.

For all my American followers. Please watch, and take appropriate political action.

Just Had the Funniest Picture Pop Into My Head

ajfitzgerald:

If Ron Paul wins the republican nomination, all the Republicans at the RNC will have to bite their tongue and support him. His non-interventionalist, anti-war views will be the new face of the Republican party.

Agreed, it will be a funny sight. Not if, but when.

Also, I like how you subtly changed it from “isolationist” to “non-interventionist”. Was the use of the former term an attempt at humour that didn’t quite work, or did you actually think he was isolationist and were shown the error of that view?

Now Ron Paul would have let Hitler take over the world

baseballlibertarian:

This is a stretch, even for the neo-cons. 

This fits philosophically with his previous calls for “armed neutrality,” which would turn America into Switzerland.

If Paul had been president in 1941, such a policy would have precluded America from aiding Britain and the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease. Both countries would likely have fallen to Nazi Germany, or been forced into some type of accommodation with Hitler. And with Great Britain and the Soviet Union out of the fight, the Germans would have been free to consolidate control over Europe — and perhaps next the Middle East — with all the utter evilness that would have entailed.

Then again, a Paul presidency would probably have averted the Pearl Harbor attacks since his foreign policy philosophy would have been opposed to an oil embargo on Japan. But without American involvement in World War II, there would also likely have been no Manhattan project, meaning Germany would have have had an open playing field to develop atomic capabilities first — and then global nuclear dominance.

Could American fealty have followed? However you look at it, if Ron Paul were president during the late 1930s and early 1940s, the 20th Century would not be remembered as the American Century. It would have been the Nazi Century.

Yes, because in December 1941, Britain hadn’t already won the Battle of Britain (which they had), and the Soviets weren’t already pushing back against the Nazis (they were, and hard, everywhere except Stalingrad).

Ooh, there would’ve been no American nukes! Boo fucking hoo! Japan would’ve overextended their empire and collapsed, like all empires do. Nazi Germany was already waging a two-front war in continental Europe by December 1941. Canadians took Ortona when the Americans refused to attack the town, occupied by German paratroops. Britain pulled off Dunkirk and won the Battle of Britain, and the Russians pushed back the Nazis on their own.

The only thing the United States can take sole credit for in WWII was beating Japan single-handedly.

</rant>

Fuck yeah, tumblr and shit!: A Response to "10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul"

eddardsharpe:

I was going to go through your points one by one and agree or disagree with each one, and then explain why. But as I did, I realized that I only really had one point where I actively disagreed with the original post, which can be found here:

I fully agree with you on all points, except the last. In a situation where a home is invaded by five or six large, determined criminals, a homeowner who only owns a Glock 17 (9mm) will likely need all 17 rounds in a standard-capacity G17 magazine. Larger people need more force to stop (NOT kill! The aim isn’t to kill the attacker, but stop the attack.), as do determined attackers. A determined man who’s 6’3” and weighs 250lbs, and may very well be on drugs, will need up to three well-aimed hits with a 9mm to be stopped (two to the thoracic cavity, potentially followed by one to the cranio-ocular cavity if needed). If there’s half-a-dozen of such people bursting through your door, you’ll need up to 18 rounds of 9mm to keep yourself and your family safe. If you miss a couple times, you’ll need more rounds than are in that 17-round mag.

I see no reason why any firearm that doesn’t fire fully automatic should be taken out of the hands of responsible citizens. Same goes for accessories and magazines of any capacity.

tordify:

Cronyism in America

Watch and learn.

ronpaulrevolution:

If libertarianism only benefits the mega-rich, then why don’t the mega-rich support Rep. Ron Paul? 

ronpaulrevolution:

If libertarianism only benefits the mega-rich, then why don’t the mega-rich support Rep. Ron Paul?