People who say things like this are simply more familiar with the hipocrisies of one end of the left-right paradigm than the other. The left really isn't anti-war, they aren't pro-civil liberties, etc., any more than the right is pro-free market. For the party establishments that's all just rhetoric to fool the rubes. And for the rubes, none of that really matters, because the party bases care more about **** like free ponies, condoms, and pony condoms or defense spending, muslim muslim muslim, Israel Israel Israel, than civil liberties or smaller government.

Which govt program can I apply to to get some free pony condoms?

Aren't you married to a congressional staffer?

EDIT: @ Borodog, not fermion

Murray Rothbard, who pretty much inventented modern libertarianism, tried a coalition with the anti-Vietnam War left, felt betrayed and abandoned it. He founded the Libertarian Party, felt betrayed and abandoned it. He founded the Cato Institute, got betrayed and forced out. He tried a (ultimately disastrous imo) coalition with the "paleocobservative" right, and would have abandoned it had he not died first. The moral of that story is that coalitions with establishment sects always fail because ultimately they will always care more about the establishment planks that provide them power than any principalled rhetoric that sounds libertarian.

For the next two months anyway.

Um, maybe the problem was him? Just a thought.

The problem was definitely him. He refused to sell out.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html

If Murray didn't sell out, he was a white supremacist the whole time.

In the opposite way that you think so.

This sums up a lot of my response:

But also its super easy to skip forward videos in youtube to skim them with the preview pop up when they are a series of frames adding a sentence to a blank page until we get to four sentences then it skips to a new page like a ******ed powerpoint presentation.

Look, im gonna spell it out in a way I assumed I didnt need to in my previous post. Ronald Paul has a literal actual history of writing or at least publishing under his name and his endorsement really ****ed up **** to appeal to racists to make money from them. You guys say evidence for this is his political history which shows no evidence of racism.

The most logical inference people can make from that is that his not so ****ed up **** to appeal to voluntaryists (not a real word) is also made up to make money from them and he doesnt believe it. I know this because I can look at his political history which shows no evidence of voluntaryism.

They're not going anywhere.

I prefer we move them to the Noory Party honestly.

Like, earlier in the thread bobman called Ron Paul a racist con man.

I don't think people fully grok the implications there. Ron Paul has been conning people his entire political career. He's been raising enormous sums of money from people all over the country to keep his very safe Texas House seat. That money has been mostly funneled to his various paleoconservative associates.

His weird thing where everyone seems to believe that he agrees with them(internet libertarians are convinced he supports gay marriage, Christians think he doesn't, racists think he's racist, truthers think he's a truther) is not an accident. He'll agree with ANYONE if he can get some money out of them.

I believe he often complimented young black men on their self control.

If a racist and pedophile decided to come up with their ideal political philosophy, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything better than anarcho-capitalism. No I'm not calling Rothbard or AC-ists pedophiles. But I do think it's interesting how far Rothbard went out of his way to create a system where children could consent to all sorts of stuff, including being bought and sold.

Yeah, appealing to the fringe is a feature, not a bug. Normal people, i.e. non-racists, non-conspiritards, etc. have two quite powerful political parties to donate to. Their candidates win elections, get on TV, and generally fundraise from the people who stand to benefit from their policies.

The fringe doesn't, of course, see the GOP and Democrats as "being on their side", they are the establishment, "The Man". But they still have money. Ron Paul has been extracting that money for his entire life.

So it's not that "libertarians" need to abandon the fringe right for the fringe left, actual libertarians need to abandon the fringe entirely. No more "well this guy agrees with me about issue X lets overlook the other awful **** he won't stop talking about".

cognitive dissonance this thread haz it

Which post is the cognitive dissonance Neblis?

logic and reason Paul D haz it

I'm not certain he knows what that means.

Oh sure, he is using it wrong if he means what I think he does, but I was willing to look past that to mine down to what he is getting at.

we know what you are trying to insinuate, but maybe he believed black people were smarter than white people, or that chinese folk had better spacial intelligence.

hes right, the number of libertarian leaning voters who feel trapped is astronomical.

"are you ever not going to fall for that"

man what is fly gonna do when the ron paul gravy train dries up?

Feed off the Rand Paul gravy train?