Ron Paul's candidacy

John Creighto

This is off topic. Anyway, one should not doubt that these two philosophers had wildly different viewpoints. However, they both advocate minimizing the coercive aspect of the state and hence the title of libertarian is appropriate. We should distinguish between Left-Libertarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
where Bakunin would be classified within and right-libertarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism

where such people as Ron-Paul, Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick would fall.
Rand would differ with Bukunin on two accounts. The first account, being that Bukunin would have a greater concern about the common good than Rand. The second is that Ayn Rand called Anarchy unworkable because she believed that the first Gang to get strong enough would take control.

Her statement of this view makes me question her background/knowledge with regards to Anarchist philosophy because most Anarchist philosophers of historical note (including Bukunin) advocate some form of cooperation, although Bukunin for some paradoxical reason classified the “Post State” cooperation as “a-political”.

Nozick gives good justification for Rand’s view of the role of the state where he argues that personal protection is a natural monopoly. Such natural equilibriums fits well into Proudhon’s paradigm where freedom can exist only in the context of the state and to obtain maximum freedom one must find the best balance between Statism and liberty.

SixNein

I'm not sure where you arrive at such a conclusion. Of course, some people believe that they and they alone are the ultimate authority on the constitution. In these arguments, they all too often forget the role of the 3rd branch.

Suppose that Ron Paul really did believe that government wasn't acting within its constitutional bounds. Why doesn't he challenge it in court?

A lot of people didn't believe Obamacare was constitutional, so they challenged it in court. The Supreme court has heard the case, and it will be resolved soon one way or another.

mheslep

Or, should he get elected he could simply do what FDR did and threaten to pack to the court with as many justices as he needs to make it to his liking.

SixNein

And he would be no more successful then FDR in accomplishing such a task. The legislator would have to be willing to pass such legislation.

But he could still pack the courts the traditional way by nominating justices akin to his views. Currently, we have a fairly conservative court (5-4). Of course, justices have to play along too. Justice Stephens didn't retire when he did because of his poor mental state.

mheslep

FDR's court packing threat, which included legislation that became law, was utterly successful.

Initial New Deal legislation attempts were demolished by the Hughes court. Subsequently FDR introduced his court packing legislation by way of one his fireside chats. The passage of the 1937 court packing plan allowed the addition of six judges to the existing nine. Afterwards, the Court began wholesale approval of New Deal legislation, culminating in Wickard v. Filburn where the court sided the federal government assertion of the power to prevent a farmer from growing wheat for his own, private, consumption.

Galteeth

In my observation, the republican establishment seems to care very little for the official rules. The intersection of actual law versus party by-law is complex. Party by-law is not necessarily law, although it can be. There is also a difference between illegal according to party law, illegal according to election law (state and/or federal), and "not in the spirit of fairness" (which is probably what Romney's lawyers are whining about).

SixNein

Did you read all of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia...ll.27s_failure

Your source doesn't agree with you.

and it goes on to say

mheslep

Again I said threat, and the outcomes I stated are correct (though I was wrong about the 1937 bill actually becoming law). Rooselvelt held his fireside chat on March 9th, 1937, announcing his intentions to pack the court. Afterwards, the next ten continuous New Deal related supreme court cases, decided March through May 1937, were in Roosevelt's favor, a complete reversal of the 1936 blowout 5 loss to 1 win blowout. The court packing law was defeated later in the summer of 1936 after the opposition ship had already sunk.

Office_Shredder

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ctionContent.4

Ron Paul playing the delegate game with panache

lpetrich

So he's trying to score big with backroom deals for state delegates?

Seems like a throwback to the days of smoke-filled rooms.

ThomasT

I think Paul's intention was to make some sort of impact regarding his message, which, to a certain extent, he's done, imo.

I think that back room negotiations have always been, and still are, a major part of politics at any level. It's just that these days the rooms are less smoky.

Office_Shredder

It's not Ron Paul's fault that the Republican establishment requires that delegates in Minnesota are selected in shady backroom deals instead of having a primary

mheslep

1. Can you please source that assertion, as I can't find backing for it. Clearly there *was* a Minn primary held back in February. 2. Does the outcome of the Minnesota primary impact Paul, now, in any way?

Jimmy Snyder

I don't think the phrase shady backroom deal means that the room was actually shady or that it was in the back or even that a deal was made in a room. Probably it just refers to the fact that Paul got 27% of the vote in Minnesota, but 83% of the delegates. That's not Paul's fault. He didn't make the rules, he just plays well by them.

Office_Shredder

No they had a caucus not a primary. Caucuses are just straw polls and typically have no effect on the delegate selection process. Depending on each state's byzantine rules local caucuses select delegates (independent of the straw poll typically) to send to a larger convention to select state delegates

mheslep

Perhaps, but that was not my take. I think the "backroom" phrase does not refer to an assumption of unfair, existing rules. I think it means to infer that the rules were ignored or at the least manipulated by the powerful, so that the outcome is fixed. Here the process is asserted as fixed by a Republican process in Minnesota that is inherently corrupt, as compared to others, all without evidence. Now, the phrase may be justified as corruption in politics is hardly unheard of. But then neither are whining and bogus claims from the unsuccessful.

lpetrich

I think that "backroom deal" is a completely appropriate term for something that took place behind the scenes, outside of public view.

If Ron Paul's followers have a lot greater fraction of delegates than votes, as they seem to do in some places, then it reflects on their politicking skills, not on what the voters had wanted.