(Un)Sound Politics?

Occasionally I pop over to the Sound Politics web site to see what the locals are up to. It always amazes me what passes as 'conservative' nowadays. Our old friend Bruce Guthrie is a regular poster over there, but I think he's tolerated more than anything. If they could outright ban him (and other like him) without catching too much flack, I think they probably would. There are others like Bruce that post there, but the point is that those espousing a more libertarian viewpoint are not necessarily welcomed with open arms.

 

I tend to watch my feedreader for posts about Ron Paul on their site. Generally, their posts are hit pieces to smear his name by associating him with some event he had nothing to do with, or belittling his presidential campaign. I get the impression that the majority of those that read and subscribe to Sound Politics and also call themselves conservative are more interested in keeping with the Statist quo (that's not a spelling error), than working towards more individual liberty and personal freedom and smaller government. Heck, I think some wouldn't recognize a true conservative even if they were shaking the hand of Thomas Jefferson, himself.

 

Which brings me to another topic: yesterday, I was listening to an internet radio show (don't remember which one) and they were talking about Ron Paul's bid for the White House. These guys claim to be Hard-Core Libertarians and one actually said he couldn't endorse Dr. Paul because Paul wasn't consistent on his non-aggression principle. Fine, I can respect that. So what? You're going to vote for the Libertarian candidate that has next to no chance of winning (let alone getting on every state's ballot)? Some movement in the direction of liberty is ALWAYS better than no movement at all.

 

But, it gets better. They then started to talk about some law (no, not that kind of law... the other kind) that says that all governments will collapse over time. By electing Paul as president, we're actually prolonging the inevitable. It would be far better, they said, to put in office the very worst candidate possible. That way, the end would be hastened by his recklessness. And, dammit-all-to-hell, that actually made sense! And I hate them for that ('hate' may be too strong a word). In other words, the end is coming no matter what you do. Just as death always follows birth, a constituted government will always eventually collapse over time. The best we could do is deliberately perpetuate its demise.

 

So, knowing this, where does that leave me with my Ron Paul for President signs and stickers? A little ticked off, I assure you, but me thinks I'll vote for him anyway. I don't have nearly enough provisions for when it gets "really bad", so if Ron Paul wins the Presidency, it'll give me at least four more years to stock up for the forthcoming doomsday. I will add that one of the talking heads on the radio did say that voting Ron Paul into office may actually be the catalyst that brings about the end to our failing democracy. He reasoned that if Paul follows through with his promise to drastically slash the size of government, he will in fact be kicking out the very foundation holding up this house of cards we call our government. Interesting logic, no?

 

On another note, Did you see where the GAO was able to sneak bomb-making parts past TSA screeners at 19 airports around the country? Another 'F' grade for the gate keepers. We've traded our freedom for security, and it seems we're getting exactly what we deserve in return!