All of this talk about Libertarians reminds us of a recent book I was reading about violence in Non-state societies vs. western societies. The average for the 30 or so non-state societies (hunter gatherer groups) was a bit over 500 violent deaths per 100,000 In the middle ages with weak central power and decentralized rule by local nobles for the most part, homicide rates were about 100 per 100,000. From the late middle ages to the 20th century in Western Europe violence rates declined substantially to something on the order of 10 per 100,000 as the state monopolized violence. Western Europe has now declined from 10 to 1 per 100,000. The United States has hovered around 10 per 100,000, though recently that has gone down to about 5 per 100,000. Homicide rates in the Southern U.S. have trended over the rest of the country, a fact explained by the author due to a honor code that persists in the South.

I say all this because the facts are that as we have progressed from a non-state to a society where violence is controlled by the state (by the way, Germany with all of its problems in the 20th century--only had homicide rates of the century of about 130 or so) rates of violence have declined markedly. I think that is a pretty good thing. Libertarians hardly want any state at all. Their whole theory--that government is the problem--seems belied by the fact that in Western Europe, where there is a strong safety net and a reasonably strong central government homicide rates are so miniscule (indicating a level of satisfaction and respect for government).

Yes, we had a horrible 20th Century where totalitarian governments in various parts of the world killed large numbers of people. And we have to be diligent in western countries to make sure that power is checked. But the evidence of homicide rates indicates the most satisfied countries are liberal democracies with strong safety nets. Libertarianism, if applied to our country, would cause massive social unrest. I find hard to believe that the U.S. has gone so far right that a Libertarian would get major party support.

While I completey agree with a lot of Ron Paul's foreign policy proposals, the LIbertarian idea is somethiing I hope we nip in the bud. It should have gone the way of Communiism and Fascism.

Guapo wrote:What percentage of Republicans would NOT vote for Ron Paul over Obama?

Actually, I won't vote for Ron Paul if he is the Republican nominee. I work my ass off to make sure the House stays Republican and the Senate goes Republican so they basically hamstring Obama and then vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Also, understand that I am rather active in my local party. I know a lot of Republicans would vote the same way.

While I completey agree with a lot of Ron Paul's foreign policy proposals, the LIbertarian idea is somethiing I hope we nip in the bud. It should have gone the way of Communiism and Fascism.

The libertarian idea is where the foreign policy proposals come from. It's called starting with a principle and applying that principle.
Giving a group of people the power to force their will on others is where the foreign policy you dislike comes from.

theodorelogan wrote:And what could the GOP offer Ron Paul?

This is easy. A political future for Rand. Basically, it would be endorse the nominee or all funding for Rand's future campaigns will disappear and he will be primiaried any time he runs for any office including dog catcher.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Guapo wrote:What percentage of Republicans would NOT vote for Ron Paul over Obama?

Actually, I won't vote for Ron Paul if he is the Republican nominee. I work my ass off to make sure the House stays Republican and the Senate goes Republican so they basically hamstring Obama and then vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Also, understand that I am rather active in my local party. I know a lot of Republicans would vote the same way.

So Ron Paul wouldn't win Bensalem? Damn. Philly and its suburbs are hotbeds of Republican support.

Guapo wrote:So Ron Paul wouldn't win Bensalem? Damn. Philly and its suburbs are hotbeds of Republican support.

Well, considering Bensalem has a Republican Mayor, 5 out of 5 seats on the Town Council are Republican and 9 out of 9 seats on the School Board are Republcian, I would say yeah kind of is.

Also, I don't live in Bensalem (grew up there). I live in Middletown Township where 4 out of 5 seats on the Board of Supervisors are Republican, 8 of the 9 school board seats are Republican, I would say yeah it is.

Also, I live in Bucks County which has a majority Republican County Commissioner and every single row office, i.e. Sheriff, Treasurer, Register of Wills, Recorder of Deed, etc. are held by Republicans, my U.S. Congressman is Republican, 3 of 3 State Senators that represent Bucks County are Republican and 7 of 10 State Reps that represent Bucks County are Republican.

so I would say yeah my suburban area is a hotbed of Republican support you sarcastic prick

You can't take a simple jab? Dude, Bensalem is in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania hasn't gone Republican in a general election in 24 years. No part of eastern PA can be considered a Republican hotbed. I don't consider Phoenix a Republican hotbed, and that's far more Republican than Philly and its burbs.

PA is not a very relevant state. It's not a swing state. It only denotes whether a Republican landslide is coming.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

theodorelogan wrote:And what could the GOP offer Ron Paul?

This is easy. A political future for Rand. Basically, it would be endorse the nominee or all funding for Rand's future campaigns will disappear and he will be primiaried any time he runs for any office including dog catcher.

LOL. Keep dreaming Russ. Both Pauls know that their success has been based on bucking the establishment. I can't wait to see thee wailing and gnashing of teeth, along with the protestations that "Paul doesn't matter" when Ron Paul endorses Gary Johnson (assuming that Ron doesn't go independent himself).

If they primary Rand (and I don't doubt they will, regardless of what Ron does) that will just add to his anti-establishment credentials. Ron Paul has stood up to primaries in every election...Rand will easily be able to do the same. Do you REALLY think that the last act of Ron Paul's career is going to be to, at the moment of his greatest relevance and influence, to endorse the establishment he has railed against for 30 years? You couldn't write a story more tragically ironic than that.

Yes, we had a horrible 20th Century where totalitarian governments in various parts of the world killed large numbers of people.

Oh yeah, that old thing. Did you include that In your 130 per 100,000 homicide rate?

John Wayne gacy had a remarkably low murder rate too, besides that nasty business from 72-78. Other than that little thing, what a blessing he was!

South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis endorses Ron Paul, with more Senatorial endorsements to come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhJAKhN_ ... e=youtu.be

I post this video, not because I knew who he was before this endorsement (although I understand that all the non-Romney candidates have been courting his endorsement). Many say that, besides DeMint, that he is the most influential man in the state amongst Tea-Partiers. I post it because of his view, which I think is widely held in the GOP, that he is sick of people telling them are going to cut the size and scope of government, and not doing it. To be honest, this realization was what started me on the past toward libertarianism.

From the interview:

I'm tired of all the rhetoric. I'm tired of individuals saying their gonna cut spending...they're gonna get government out of our lives, when they have a record, when they're in power, of doing precisely the opposite. Getting government in our lives, creating spending. I'm tired of the rhetoric, and like The Who song says, "I'm not gonna be fooled again." I'm not gonna get on my knees and pray. I'm gonna go with the guy I know that has a record that supports that.

As a non-American, I really want Paul to win the nomination. Not that I think there's much chance of that, or any chance of him becoming President, but it would make for a fantastic spectator sport...

Romney admitted today that over the past ten years he paid about 15% of his income in taxes (because his income comes from investments) The man is a walking billboard for the unfairness of the American brand of capitalism. By the way, I disagree wtth George and Monte that Bain's corporate raiding has any net benefit. I get the need for venture capital. When a company needs money to expand but it does not have a track record, you need an equity investor not a bank, because it does not make sense for a bank to take such heavy risks on a loan that will pay a low rate of interest. However Bain is a corporate raider not a venture capital firm Bain's investment may be good for Bain, the owner of the company bought, and Bain's investors, but it is not good for the company as evidenced by the high rate of bankruptices of compainies invested in Bain. When you saddle companies you buy with debt and cut their work force, you are not really setting them up for long-term health. Ventgure capital fills a valuable role in the ecconomy; I don't see any value added by Bain.

freeman2 wrote: I disagree wtth George and Monte that Bain's corporate raiding has any net benefit. I get the need for venture capital. When a company needs money to expand but it does not have a track record, you need an equity investor not a bank, because it does not make sense for a bank to take such heavy risks on a loan that will pay a low rate of interest. However Bain is a corporate raider not a venture capital firm Bain's investment may be good for Bain, the owner of the company bought, and Bain's investors, but it is not good for the company as evidenced by the high rate of bankruptices of compainies invested in Bain. When you saddle companies you buy with debt and cut their work force, you are not really setting them up for long-term health. Ventgure capital fills a valuable role in the ecconomy; I don't see any value added by Bain.

I think I agree with you, the net benefit is close to zero. See my post #269. There are benefits, there are costs, and the net benefit to our economy and country is probably close to zero in the aggregate. Maybe you mean that Bain and companies like them have a net negative effect?

Sassenach wrote:As a non-American, I really want Paul to win the nomination. Not that I think there's much chance of that, or any chance of him becoming President, but it would make for a fantastic spectator sport...

I would add it's not a bad spectator sport from the inside.

freeman2 wrote:However Bain is a corporate raider not a venture capital firm

Source?