Ron Paul Campaigns in His Whimsical, Steam-Driven Jalopy!

By -

Comments

  1. Anonymous10:10 AM

    I found this very humorous; however, I can't help but think that part of the reason many people make fun of Paul has to do with his non-interventionist foreign policy, attack on the Federal Reserve, and to a degree his opposition to expansion of the police state.

    After watching this video, I became a bit annoyed (aside from finding this funny); I think because making fun of Paul for his views as if they're 'crazy' seems, in my opinion, to be ridiculous in light of the fact that what passes for 'normal' US Gov. policy to me seems to be what is truly crazy.

    I think it is possible that many became upset about saying, "Ron Paul can't win, etc", because, even though they possibly knew this deep down, it was felt that to say that, would be a sign of complete resignation. After all, why go through all one goes through to support a cause if you believe that you are going to fail; it seems as if it would be used by the media to say, "He's says he can't win; his supporters do, so, we'll ignore him even more." This can give rise to an attitude of defiant resistance, and absolute disregard for the attacks of everything against you. But, in a reactive emotional sense, feeling you've been pushed in the mud all the time, always attacked, and even after getting into the double-digits, being attacked more, people just become stubborn.

    At some point, many people make the decision that they would rather maintain the illusion, than give into an bad reality. Because, to say evil has won, to many, seems as if you are giving in.

    Not saying you are bad, Dr. Callahan, for posting this, or making any attacks on you. But, as someone who supported Ron Paul both in 2008 and 2012, I think, in retrospect, this was part o the reason. If the neo-con opponent, establishmentarian, etc, etc, just laughs at you, ridicules you, and says very condescending things to you, at some point you just go in the exact opposite direction. And, in a certain sense, because so many of Paul's supporters absolutely believed he could win (unlikely as that was), they worked very, very hard, and, amazingly, they contributed to him doing far better this time around than he did last.

    That's just my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more