Arres wrote:I would rather have another 4 awful years of President Obama, than continue to support the system as it stands. Republican, Independant, or write-in, Dr. Paul has my support.
I think this is a key lesson that people are starting to learn, both those that lean right or left. The establishment parties, both the Democrats and Republicans, benefit from pushing movements into one camp or the other. Once a movement is subsumed by the establishment, their votes can essentially be taken for granted. Hence the idea of voting against the "other guys", rather than voting on individual principles and beliefs - an inherently collectivist idea itself.
Take Howard Dean's anti-war movement in the 2004 primary, for example. The Democrats were able to successfully subsume the movement, and in 2008, Obama only needed some rhetoric to win their votes - and if Paul is not nominated now, he can likely win at least some of their votes despite a pro-war record. The same thing may happen for the "budget hawks" in the Tea Party that pushed the elections in 2010, if they bow to pressure to vote for establishment Republicans.
The Tea Party and (I hope) OWS indicate that people are learning these lessons. While I, personally, fit with the Tea Party a bit more, neither of these movements have accepted a label with a specific party. While one can say that the Tea Party is more "right-wing" and OWS is more "left-wing", that isn't the same thing at all - one can just look at the insistence of the Tea Party to vote for "kooks" like Rand Paul, etc. over the "guaranteed" victory of establishment Republicans. And again, despite attempts by the establishment Republicans to co-opt the Tea Party, and Obama to co-opt OWS, it is actually Ron Paul that has gained the most support from people that put their independence and their philosophy above party.
Now, whether either of those movements "sticks around" is still to be determined by events, but given the track record of co-opted movements, I think this is good, but I also think anything that rebukes the two party hegemony is good, so take that as you will. (And I would like to thank Cid for changing my mind about, among other things, the partisan system. Know that this is all your fault, you nut.
)
Ron Paul, and his message, is unique, precisely due to his brand of moderate politics. I say moderate because that's what it is - Paul could just as easily be running as a conservative Democrat based on his civil rights and foreign policy stances, as he is as a Republican based on his market and government spending stances. He is the "radical moderate", as it were. The establishment, grasping for power, fears this, because they prefer the moderate Obama or McCain - where "moderate" means the worst parts of the two parties: the Democratic drive to control people here and the Republican drive to control other nations. (I've heard it said: if you want to control Americans, you are a Democrat; if you want to control foreigners, you are a Republican; if you want to control the whole world, you are a moderate; but if you want to control only yourself, you are a crazy radical.)
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?
Melonpool
Question: why is this guy considered a great economist, while Ron Paul (and his fellow Austrian economists) are considered the crazies? Not only did Krugman barely see the housing bubble coming - as he 
