1. The author was doing well until he started making both his Objectivist and
anarcho-capitalist views known. The author is right that we'll probably never
get a libertarian society peacefully through non-violent means, and while I
agree with some of the commentators that Ron Paul getting 10% in IA, 14% in NV,
15% in MN, not to mention getting into the twenties in states like ND and MT is
huge progress, we're not going to get a libertarian society this election,
probably next election, and maybe EVER. The author made some good points as to
WHY, namely that loads of 'people' (I won't call them human beings) do well by
coercing others. Surveys have shown that possibly a maximum of 14% of our
society is libertarian. In my own races for Congress in two very different
districts, I probably only got up to that maximum and exceeded it slightly by
cross-over voting by Dems sick of the war who would never have voted for me in a
non-war year.
2. The author's essay notably deteriorated when he falsely
started accusing Ron Paul of believing in evolution. During one of the first
debates, I believe even before the former Virginia Governor dropped out
(Gilmore), only three of the GOP guys (Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee) raised
their hands that they didn't believe in evolution. Here it became obvious that
he didn't watch the debates AND that he was imposing his own Objectivist bias,
since loads of Christians believe in Deistic Evolution.
3. The author REALLY
went downhill when he then acted as if the 'real' issue was Ron Paul's
inconsistency somehow since he's not an anarcho-capitalist. PLEASE. Most of us
who actually WENT TO COLLEGE have heard of the public goods argument advanced by
Paul Samuelson, and thus understand that the military, while IT doesn't always
do a very good job EITHER and indeed partly based on its being funded by taxes
instead of by profit motive, is nevertheless destined largely to be funded by
taxes rather than private fees. To use the author's own phrase, IN A NUTSHELL,
with the emphasis on NUT, Ron Paul would have been seen AS a NUT if he'd tried
to be a consistent anarcho-capitalist.
4. Indeed, in general, the author
while at times seeming to sanely say that folks out there just aren't buying it
and never will because they themselves do very well being part of the racket, at
other times the author seems to be saying that if we only had a hard-core
atheist anarcho-capitalist, then at least people MIGHT have had a better chance
of voting for him because he'd be CONSISTENT. PLEASE!!! ROTFLMAO. Look, it IS
important for real libertarians NOT to be part of the government racket
themselves, but believe me, if every person in this nation who ever pulled the
Libertarian level were a hard-core never-been-on-the-take type, their "good
example" wouldn't "somehow" convert the bloodsuckers in the union-lawyer-academe
Democrat racket or the military industrial complex socialism-for-the-rich GOP.
Rather oddly, the "good example" argument sounds more like what I've read in
Paul's epistles.
5. The CLOSEST we're going to come to a free society is to
establish our own nation somewhere and take it over. Even if we do the Free
State Project thing - and NH giving 8% shows what a failed attempt it is there,
NH was NEVER going to become libertarian, the best thing you can say is at least
they were consistent conservatives - it wouldn't end the imperialist fascist war
machine which is the biggest single waste of our tax dollars. By the way, I
think NV, MD, MT, or even MN would be a better place for us to take over. My
choice is Nevada - better weather and looser women >:-)