"Hanging Around" - A Message For My Libertarian Friends

Free State Project Forum

264425 Posts in 21121 Topics by 34819 Members / Latest Member: gestinos

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2013, 08:26:22 am

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

I may create a firestorm with this post; I really don't know. Regardless, I've got to say what I believe is right and I hope someone finds these words in this most critical election that we've ever faced as a nation.

The following post can be found on my blog, http://oldageandtreachery.blogspot.com.

HANGING AROUND

I guess you could say I'm one of those wacky Libertarian types. I'm an extreme fiscal conservative, even more extreme small-government advocate, a social moderate and a distinctly unapologetic defender of the themes of Liberty and Freedom (together with the personal responsibility these things require). I'm not registered as a Libertarian though; I'm a lifetime Republican and you'll learn why in just a few moments.

Before I go into that, I want to paint a bit of an analogy that might help put some of this in perspective. Let's call this "hanging around" theory.

If you've ever been to a slot machine casino you've seen video poker games. These are much more games of skill than their "triple seven" counterparts, and given a bit of knowledge they can be played considerably more profitably. This isn't an article about probability or other mathematics, or about gambling, so I won't go into great detail here. If you've never played poker, or one of these machines, some of this may not make sense to you. If you have, though, you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about. I'll try to make this clear to both those who have played and those who have not.

Video poker machines pay out based upon the strength of the player's final hand. A pair of Jacks or better, on most machines, returns even money. A flush returns 5 or 6 to one, and the scale increases as the hand strength increases, up to the Royal Flush which pays out a "jackpot". The winning strategy on these machines depends entirely on one's ability to make the correct decisions when drawing to his or her initial hand. Often the correct decision doesn't, on the surface, make much sense. Proper decision making on these machines frequently entails foregoing an apparent larger payout opportunity in order to collect a more likely smaller payout. Playing for a pair of jacks, in other words, is usually smarter than playing for a straight or a flush. Why? Because you're not playing for either of those hands--you're playing for the jackpot. Think about that for a moment and it will make sense to you. The whole object of video poker strategy is to "hang around" long enough to win the big one. Each time you get your money back, with a pair of jacks for example, you've "hung around" one more hand. The next deal of the cards could present you with that Royal Flush and THAT'S your actual goal.

Large-scale politics, for a Libertarian, must be thought of in the same way. You may want to go for that flush, but when the odds are severely against you it makes much better sense strategically to make the play that allows you to "hang around" for another deal.

Here is a fundamental truth that Libertarians, and those of their ilk, need to recognize and come to grips with; the movement you support will never, ever, EVER occur from the top down. The defense and resurgence of Liberty will only occur from the bottom up. Libertarianism is a grass-roots movement; that's the only strategy that can ever work. It's the only method by which that larger "payoff" can ever be achieved, and the larger victory can only come after a long period of just "hanging around".

No one from the Libertarian (or Constitution, or any other small) party will ever be elected to major national office--or at least, not in any kind of plurality--until the grass-roots efforts have created huge swells of interest in smaller venues. Libertarians have to move into city council and state house roles IN LARGE NUMBERS before any serious inroads can be made at the national level. This is probably not news to those who have been around the party/movement for awhile, but the central lesson somehow doesn't translate completely to the rank and file and, shockingly, we get a situation where Libertarians and other Liberty-minded folk actually vote in a manner inconsistent with their best interests. They play for the flush, rather than trying to "hang around" long enough to hit the jackpot.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are presented with two and only two life-threatening choices; you can take a bullet to the chest, or you can take a bullet to the leg. Once you're shot, the assailant will disappear for awhile and you are free to do whatever you may to try to survive. The choice, in a situation like this, is pretty clear. What may not be clear is that, for a Liberty-minded individual, that exact choice--and only that choice--is presented every four years...during the Presidential elections. Sometimes the choice may be a shot to the thigh or a shot to the calf (as it was with Bill Clinton/George Bush I) and sometimes it's worse. In any case, we are realistically presented with only two realistic scenarios in any given Presidential election, and the choice we make--or the failure to make one of those choices--determines whether we've ultimately helped or hurt our cause. FAILING TO CHOOSE THE BEST OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS HURTS OUR CHANCES OF "HANGING AROUND" LONG ENOUGH TO ACHIEVE OUR TRUE GOALS.

Ron Paul is, by most definitions, a Libertarian...but there's a reason he isn't registered as one, and why he didn't run as one. Paul understands inherently that to have any chance at all--TO HAVE ANY CHANCE AT ALL--of winning election to a major national post, he must be a Republican or a Democrat. His run for the White House on the Republican ticket had some honor (it no longer does) and brought a great deal of positive publicity to the cause of Liberty. Once it became obvious he could not win, and once the publicity began to ebb, the best thing Ron Paul could do for the long-term success of the policies he champions, is remove himself from the race and throw his wholehearted support behind the candidate who represents the best chance for us to "hang around" for four more years. Likewise, the best thing the Libertarian Party could do for the long-term success of it's stated goals is to drop all pretense of a run at the White House and instead support the lesser of two evils because those are the only choices we legitimately have, and only one of those represents the best possibility that we may "hang around" long enough to strengthen and grow from the ground up so that we may one day actually have a chance at major national office. Running a ticket, and encouraging your supporters to vote for that ticket, when it is absolutely certain that not only will your ticket not win but it will not even make a significant splash is, at best, a self-serving exercise in vanity. At worst it is a step backwards for your movement, and the antithesis of "hanging around". This year in particular, it could spell death for the nation we're trying to put back on-course. The damage done from wasting one's vote this year may be simply irrecoverable.

You will not see the Ron Paul or Bob Barr campaigns ending before this election is over, despite that it would be the best thing that could happen for the long-term success of the Liberty movement. But the short-sightedness of the national party doesn't have to infect your decision-making. An intelligent examination of the situation at hand will conclude that, firstly, the best course of action for our long-term goals to be met is that we "hang around" long enough to create a popular uprising, and that will occur from the ground up in small- to medium-sized offices. Secondly, you should be able to easily conclude that, in this year with these candidates and the financial crisis we currently face, our very possibility of "hanging around" is threatened. I say this with no interest in undue drama--it is entirely possible that the nation we love could come to a literal demise if the wrong choice is made on November 4th this year. Even with the right choice we're in a great deal of trouble...but the wrong choice may absolutely be fatal. We simply may never recover. This year we can choose to be shot in the belly, or shot in the head. A vote for Bob Barr, a vote for Ron Paul, or a non-vote in this environment puts YOUR FINGER on the trigger.

Barack Obama and the overly-liberal congress he is likely to have behind him will spell the death of America as we know it. This is the most government-centric candidate we've seen for office in our lifetimes; he is the ultimate nanny-statist. John McCain may not be the best friend a Libertarian could have, but given the alternative there is no alternative! If we are truly committed to our long-term goal of Liberty in our lifetime, this year we have no choice. We must vote, and we must vote McCain. We have to give ourselves and our cause a chance to "hang around" awhile longer. This year any other decision--including a non-vote--is extremely detrimental to the cause of Freedom and places you squarely at odds with the ideals you claim to represent.

I'm not a huge fan of McCain either, but I'm going to do what's right. I urge you to do the same.

I think voting for McCain feels more like getting shot in the groin, but I'll still take that over being shot in the head.

Good post.

Your analogy really breaks down.

Quote from: oldageandtreachery on October 06, 2008, 11:08:00 am

I say this with no interest in undue drama--it is entirely possible that the nation we love could come to a literal demise if the wrong choice is made on November 4th this year.

Some would argue that only way for us to truly succeed is for the system to fail. Only then, can the tyranny and idiocy of our present system hit home with the majority of Americans. Perhaps some would then choose a more powerful government. But, many would finally realize that government IS the problem and would seek a return to our minarchist roots.

It is easy to conclude, then, that voting for the lesser of 2 evils is EXACTLY the wrong choice because it perpetuates the status quo.

Believe me, I've considered this "better if we fall" train of thought also, and it has many merits. The problem, as I see it, is that if something like this occurs it won't just be (former) Americans we're dealing with here, and no matter how well intentioned we are, or how well armed we think we are, I'm just not willing to take a chance that we'll be fighting each other along with a billion Chinese (as just one example). There are too many other governments that are better off financially, and more well organized, than ours is, and they're just itching for a chance to take over here. I don't think that any government (ours included) will long tolerate small factions trying to resurrect the original America, if the leftists here and abroad manage to tear the United States down. They will be too heavily invested in seeing America fail to allow it to be reborn. Better that we try to keep the country alive long enough to build, from the inside, upon the solid foundation that is already laid than to try to rebuild, from the outside, upon the sandy remains of this once great nation. That's my reasoning.

I disagree (big surprise, right?). Your analogy with video poker helps too.

Sure, you can keep up the hope that you might win THE BIG ONE. Every pair of jacks is another hand letting you "hang around" to win that big one...

But never forget, you're playing the house--not a bunch of suckers. The house has the edge. Using the principle of intermittent positive reinforcement--giving you a pair of jacks from time-to-time at random intervals--reinforces that tiny glimmer of hope that you'll hit the jackpot. You are being trained to exactly what the house wants: "if I can just hold out a bit longer..." Statistically, someone does make some money from time-to-time. But on average, eveyone playing the game is losing money. As long as the house is making the rules, you cannot win.

We're forced to make a choice: pick the president. Do you want the one with the over-inflated sense of entitlement, reckless disregard for others lives, who is comfortable using military force to achieve his goals? Or do you want the naïve candidate who has no practical decision-making experience--the congenial compromiser still high on an inflated ego-trip?

Either way, wrong answer! Both guys are just different sides of the same coin--the one that's be stolen from your pocket. Regardless of what they are saying, what they are doing is what matters. And they're both doing the same thing to you--just going about it in different ways.

So, rather that look at which word next to the candidate's name looks better--they're both pushing for larger government--I'd look at the environment the candidate's term would create, and how that can help. Now, if you prefer something a bit more libertarian, it's a bit silly to me to be voting in another "strong-arm" executive. I want a weak executive! I want a total sissy running sitting in the Oval Office, who couldn't decide his way out of a wet paper bag. How would our two choices respond to a modern-day Whiskey Rebellion? If

Quote

"The best course of action for our long-term goals to be met is that we "hang around" long enough to create a popular uprising"

Then you at least need the conditions to allow that to happen. Which candidate would have no hesitation to try to smack down popular protest and dissent with military force, hmm? A vote for McCain guarantees the expansion of the security state--Democratic Congressmen couldn't give two shits about DHS. Taxes can be lowered and abolished. The cracked skulls of your protesting neighbors can't be reversed so easily.

I prefer my government weak and powerless. That's why I'd vote for Obama--if it mattered in my state. And if I was such a jerk that I really wanted to make him powerless, I'd simultaneously vote for a Republican Congress. Newton had something to say about the motion resulting from two opposing forces.

As far as other people "itching to take over here", I'm not aware of one. A well-armed, vigilant citizenry is damned-hard to "take over" by an external force. There is no need to be wary of anyone who tries to take your firearms by force in conflict: shoot him. Rather, be afraid of anyone proclaiming that you should be disarmed for your own--and the greater good's--safety. Foreign nations never seem to take issue with the latter.

Just like the post that says maybe we need to let the system collapse so we can start from scratch, so does your reply have a great deal of merit and philosophically I can't argue with much of it. But it ignores three important things, in my estimation, in this particular contest. The first is that I don't for one second believe that Barack Obama is quite the naive little neophyte it sometimes appears he is. Rather I believe that he's a calculating little bastard who has more dirty tricks up his sleeve than any three Karl Roves. Next, and perhaps most troubling, is that there will be no Republican congress to stem his willful, far-left hand (another reason it's important to keep a Republican--even In Name Only--in the White House) and what's worse, the congress he's going to get is almost as far to the left as he is. And lastly, I see absolutely nothing whatsoever to indicate that such a regime will be any less gestapo-like than their Republican counterparts. The only difference in my mind is that, while the Republicans may come for your weapons wearing flak jackets and carrying guns of their own, the ultra-liberals will send goons wearing ties and carrying court orders. When these ACORN-like methods aren't available or aren't working, it's entirely possible that opposition to our activities will be brought in the form of counter-protests and intimidation tactics that we--you and I--may be prepared to stand up to, but the more "average" Americans we're trying to recruit to our cause will most definitely run away from.

There is no question this is a "lesser of two evils" situation and nobody likes it--but McCain just makes me queasy, whereas Obama absolutely turns my stomach in all respects. Obama and a loony-left congress? They'll make me nauseous first, and then they'll make me go though an enlarged beauracracy before I can even get any Pepto Bismol. When it finally arrives it will be too expensive and I won't be able to get the damned bottle open!

Quote from: oldageandtreachery on October 06, 2008, 10:08:01 pm

The first is that I don't for one second believe that Barack Obama is quite the naive little neophyte it sometimes appears he is. Rather I believe that he's a calculating little bastard who has more dirty tricks up his sleeve than any three Karl Roves.

Yes, I'll grant he's no saint. But compared to McCain, he's sucking a pacifier. It's again the unfortunate choice between the "lesser of two evils". We could argue about who's "worse", but I don't think it really matters.

Quote from: oldageandtreachery on October 06, 2008, 10:08:01 pm

Next, and perhaps most troubling, is that there will be no Republican congress to stem his willful, far-left hand (another reason it's important to keep a Republican--even In Name Only--in the White House) and what's worse, the congress he's going to get is almost as far to the left as he is. And lastly, I see absolutely nothing whatsoever to indicate that such a regime will be any less gestapo-like than their Republican counterparts. The only difference in my mind is that, while the Republicans may come for your weapons wearing flak jackets and carrying guns of their own, the ultra-liberals will send goons wearing ties and carrying court orders.

I agree with you that a Democatic executive and a Democratic Congress is a very, very dangerous thing. I can't argue with that.
However, a silk tie doesn't stop a slug. And that was really my point.

Quote from: oldageandtreachery on October 06, 2008, 10:08:01 pm

When these ACORN-like methods aren't available or aren't working, it's entirely possible that opposition to our activities will be brought in the form of counter-protests and intimidation tactics that we--you and I--may be prepared to stand up to, but the more "average" Americans we're trying to recruit to our cause will most definitely run away from.

To be clear, I'm not advocating or trying to recruit anyone to do anything. Nor am I standing up for any "cause". I'm just talking about the many possible paths the future can take. I cannot comment on what "average" Americans would actually do in that situation. Frankly, I imagine any protestor's would exert considerable effort into gathering support and to say "to hell" with the naysayers. Is there another option?

Quote from: oldageandtreachery on October 06, 2008, 10:08:01 pm

There is no question this is a "lesser of two evils" situation and nobody likes it--but McCain just makes me queasy, whereas Obama absolutely turns my stomach in all respects. Obama and a loony-left congress? They'll make me nauseous first, and then they'll make me go though an enlarged beauracracy before I can even get any Pepto Bismol. When it finally arrives it will be too expensive and I won't be able to get the damned bottle open!

Having spoken with both of them, they nauseate me equally. I keep hearing on the news that "America needs a leader." Since when? And to what place and purpose? ...and when did we, as individuals, stop leading ourselves... bah... useless brain-cell ju-jitsuing rhetoric :/

I said in 2000 that if these candidates are the best and brightest we have in this country, we're pretty much doomed (and we haven't gotten any better offerings since). After this "bailout" vote last week I'm pretty well convinced there isn't a viable reason to consider any of these morons capable of leading a St. Patrick's Day parade in the middle of January. Like you I'm not entirely clear why we even need "leaders" (as opposed to administrators, perhaps) at all, but it's the system we have and we won't be rid of it any time soon. Under that circumstance I believe the best thing we can do is what we're doing--trying to change the course of our civilization from the ground up, while it continues to rot from the head down. My interest right now is just keeping the thing upright long enough to get a reasonable start at true foundational change, rather than letting it all come crashing down without any such foundation in place. I see our desired way of life as nothing more than a dice roll at best if that happens, and I don't like those odds. McCain in the White House and the liberals in congress seems a crappy choice, it's true, but at least it's some kind of balance that buys us time. Time is all I'm after at this point--time to create something better.

Okay, I have something to add as a result of tonight's debate. I am left, following John McCain's announcement that he plans to buy up the bad mortgages of a bunch of people who bought more house than they could afford without bothering to take responsibility for their own decisions, with an undeniable internal struggle. On the one hand, I understand completely what this is...it's a reach to the middle-class that someone in his campaign has convinced him is a good idea and will be some sort of "game changer". I understand that he's a politician who is running out of time and he feels he's got to do whatever he's got to do to win, and for whatever reason he thinks this is it. Because I am so anti-Obama, I could accept it if John McCain came out for this debate wearing a gorilla suit if it was going to help him win the debate and the White House. I understand, and I can accept what is going on.

ON THE OTHER HAND--and this is the hand that rocks my cradle--this proposition is utterly ludicrous, exceedingly irresponsible and entirely too leftist for me to swallow. I need to make it clear, if I haven't already, that there are a thousand other people I would rather see running against Barack Obama and it pains me, absolutely PAINS ME, to be speaking so passionately about the need for everyone who cares about this nation to come out and cast their vote for a guy who just made such a stupid proposal that runs against everything I believe in. Given the choice between these two I'm going to need more than just Pepto Bismol for the nausea I'm going to be experiencing over the next four years WHOEVER wins the office. I'm as disgusted as anyone that this is who we have to choose from, I honestly am.

That leaves me, though, at the point where I have to stand by my position--leaning on a cane, as it is--that it's still in the best interest of the Liberty movement to keep Barack Obama out of the White House, particularly with the liberal congressional majority he's likely to inherit. I promise you, if Ron Paul or Bob Barr had any chance whatsoever of winning--ANY CHANCE WHATSOEVER--I'd be right there with my vote. But they don't. Only John McCain does. This is like trying to choose between Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin for who you want as your child's godfather, but in the end I have to go with who will be the least dangerous. I think that's John McCain. I stand by my original post, for all the same reasons I originally made it, and I urge you to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils AGAIN, so that we may have a chance of still being here a few years from now talking about the changes we've made--rather than trying to figure out where we're getting our next meal from and how much red tape we'll have to cut through just to get it. Take a vomit bag to the polls with you if you must (I will be), but pull the McCain lever, puke, and then go home and redouble your efforts to make New Hampshire the shining beacon of Liberty, from the ground up, that will give us a platform from which to eventually launch a legitimate Liberty candidate.

I'm being straight-forward, and I'm speaking from my heart. I'm sickened that this is what we're stuck with, but we've got to do--WE'VE GOT TO DO--whatever it takes to keep Barack Obama out of the White House.

Quote from: oldageandtreachery on October 07, 2008, 10:30:13 pm

Okay, I have something to add as a result of tonight's debate. I am left, following John McCain's announcement that he plans to buy up the bad mortgages...

I think the only thing that become apparent tonight is that neither candidate has the courtesy to follow simple directions. Wink

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.