It's easy to say Huntsman is more likely to win the republican nomination than Paul. Huntsman doesn't want to legalize drugs and doesn't want to drastically scale back the military. Paul wants to do those things. Republican voters really agree with Huntsman's positions. Therefore Huntsman is more likely to win. QED.

No Paul wants to throw them in jail.

I tend to agree with you.

Joe Bloe (R - natural born citizen over 35) holds a lot of views that Republicans hold. Does that make him more likely to win the nomination than Paul? Obviously not, there's more to it. Even if we limit to candidates on the ballot, does Buddy Roemer have a better chance than Paul?

I do in fact agree that Huntman has a better chance of winning than Paul. It's just that you were citing numbers that also applied to Huntsman for your argument, then said the raw numbers weren't important, which basically makes them irrelevant.

I don't know what I'm more amazed by - the fact that most RP supporters are 100% behind all of his crazy ideas, or the fact that most RP supporters cannot comprehend why the vast majority of voters strongly disagree with these ideas.

It's basically turned into a cult.

Those quotes are from two different people and I'm very very far from being a RP supporter.

But regardless I don't believe "shameful" is the same thing as "should be made illegal" and I see nothing inconsistent with calling someone/something shameful while agreeing that they have a right to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul
Can you tell me which ones you think are the "crazy" ones?

Precisely. Greater freedoms lead to instances that are undesirable. Nobody would (or at least should) argue with that. The libertarian view is simply that it is a net positive to promote greater freedom, not that it produces only positives and nothing else.

Yet for some reason some libertarians get roped into/can't seem to help themselves from arguing every single last outcome of a hypothetical full application of libertarian principles, even the really unsavory ones, as if that thing in and of itself is still positive. (see whites-only businesses)

Maybe it's because once you acknowledge that some aspects of libertarianism would cause sub-optimal outcomes, but overall the positives would still outweigh the negatives, well now we're moving away from axiom-based purity and into a pragmatic debate. At that point libertarianism becomes just another utilitarian political philosophy - what results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people etc. - and what's fun about that?

What I'm amazed by is the people that are "against" Ron Paul say that he is crazy yet can't come up with a concrete reason why his ideas are crazy and the other guys are spot on.

Does Ron Paul have his faults and limitations? Of course he does, but those things seem to be much smaller then the faults and limitations of the other candidates.

Thanks, this is the same question that I asked above. I really would like to see a reasonable answer to this question instead of the normal response that he is crazy because the machine told me so.

Ol' Ron there has learned a pretty neat trick, dividing air into individual states!

Not getting roped into this again - really! But I'd like to make a distinction. I would consider the actual existence of white only businesses to be a negative. But having the freedom to have white only businesses is a positive. In other words, living in a society where you could have a white only business if you wanted to, but nobody wanted to, would be ideal. Of course bigots exist, so if the law allowed white only businesses, those would exist too. And then there's the part where I believe people should have the right to be bigots and run their businesses accordingly, but going on about that would qualify as me getting roped in again.

lol at you

A bunch of us have been saying that for literally years and you just keep on pretending that it's some utopian fantasy.

Believing that you could have a peaceful productive society with things like white only businesses is crazy. It ignores human nature.

More practically the Ron Paul idea to eliminate a massive amount of government in a super short period of time is crazy to me. Even if I were to agree with his ideas I think you need to plan such a massive transition carefully and do it without arising mass riots from a third of the country.

Edit: And by the way - there are more options than just "Ron Paul is right on" and "Ron Paul is crazy and the other guys are spot on".

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...-insane-92407/

Notice how that thread devolves pretty quickly into feces-tossing by the haters.

Something about RP really just gets people MAD. Threats to established hierarchy triggering some lizard brain emotional response?

We're talking about the REAL WORLD not some egghead theoretical universe where sane people live.

Assertion + "that's human nature" = no argument at all.

RP dominated Iowa with people who don't watch FOX news because he doesn't disagree with a majority of the party, but that's how his ideas are being talked about.

Not to go all Frank Luntz, but if you say "cut government waste everywhere, including the military and their $1800 toilet seats" to a room full of Republicans and I bet you get a majority of them to agree. If you instead say "defund the military so Iran gets nukes and kills your entire family" then all the sudden that candidate has no chance at the nomination.

They already do it for Santorum, where the Republican media will call him "strongly pro-life" instead of "wants to outlaw all forms of birth control".

If by "majority of the party" you mean the people at the top of it controlling the messaging, then you're probably right. If you mean the people in that party, I don't think he disagrees with them that much at all. Unless of course you take every stance to some far off logical conclusion, but you can say the same about any stance that any of the candidates have.

lol william of ockham

Fair enough (although I noticed the RP argument was just assertion).

To elaborate on "That's human Nature" - I mean that a non-trivial group of people don't see things that they're excluded from and go "Oh well. I'll ignore this bigot and go start my own more successful business". They say: "**** this guy. I'm going to burn his ****ing store to the ground and teach him a lesson".

If that's human nature, we're completely ****ed. What you're describing is a violent criminal. Seriously, the guy who says "I'll burn the place down because they won't let me in" is way worse than a bigot. I wonder what other slights (real or perceived) would set that lunatic off.

Meh - I have to work a bunch today and this thread moves fast so I'm not going to get into this. That's just one example of how you guys hand wave away the real reactions that people will have to libertarian negative scenarios (reactions that have been demonstrated many times through history).

But you're handwaving away actual violence and calling it human nature. Don't anger the psychos or they'll burn stuff down, really? That's the argument?

do I need one, or after I give one, will that be handwaved away, and I will be expected to submit another?

His televised insistence that gasoline could be delivered to the consumer for 10 cents per gallon. I find that a bit kooky. For anyone who aspires to a presidency, to choose a Peter Pan scenario is kooky. It groups him in with the Herman Cain's and Newt's, in need to make a splash with supporters. If that splash is to raise money or sell books, it's their business, but it places the candidate in quack territory rather than serious one.

Of course the above only applies to someone independent or anti. The followers can't see beyond the adoration.