Proof We Live In a World With Statist Assumptions

Only a mostly-statist world would consider Paul Ryan a libertarian.

Also, here is my growing Romney fear -- that this guy shares many of the same assumptions as President Obama about the government's role in top-down management of the economy.  So far, his rhetoric has the feel not of seeking freedom from state authority but instead that, in the context of top-down state authority, he will be the better, smarter manager.  In other words, we are doomed.  Which is about the way I sum up every Presidential election.


  1. John O.:

    I feel the same way as I see the whole Tea Party movement getting set up for a betrayal if they continue this path of blindly accepting of what the Republicans tell them.

    I count myself incredibly lucky to have saw the better path in the Libertarianism soon after high school than to fall for the trap the Republicans and Democrats have set for everybody. My only gripe with the Libertarian party is the inability to control the state parties from wasting their money fruitlessly supporting Ron Paul. Its clear to me that the Republican party is not a viable option to pursue the values of freedom and liberty.

  2. Kevin R:

    On Ryan, much of the libertarian commentary on him I've seen recently has been the same "perfect is the enemy of the good" attitude that has led to so much electoral success for libertarians over the years. He's not Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, no, but he's probably as close as we're going to get in the near future. Ryan's made some frustrating compromises as a congressman (TARP is most worrying in my view), but that's probably why he leads the budget committee and not Paul. Especially coming from a party that not long ago was taking Rick Santorum halfway seriously, I think Ryan's nomination is a pretty good step.

    Totally with you on Romney though.

    And also the fact that we're doomed -- even if I think Ryan is a good step, and even if he gets elected, I doubt much will change in the end.

  3. Jim:

    Both sides think everything will be better if only "their guy" or "the right guy" is placed in charge.

    It will crash, because it must crash, under its own weight.

  4. Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master:

    Yeah, it's rare you get to pick someone who is "better". The most you seem to get is usually which one is "worse".

    And let's face it... considering the arrogance and presumption with which The One has executed his first term, you can hardly expect his second term, with no concern for re-election, to be even vaguely controlled.

    The One will do anything and everything he can to kick the whole thing into the fire.

  5. Mark2:

    Seems like every thirty 30 years or so we get someone really good who can transform the system, if only a little bit. We had that with reforms started under Carter and Continued under Reagan.

    Romney ain't no Reagan, but he just may surprise.

    For those above commenting about the same ol if our guy wins on the the Dem/GOP side. You gotta realize libertarians are just the same, and have a reputation of being unyielding, arrogant pot heads. Not saying I necessarily agree, but that is the image.

  6. James Howe:

    Completely agree with you on both counts, especially Romney. I definitely get the sense that he feels he can 'run' the company better than Obama and that is the reason to vote for him. I expect that if he is elected, some things will be marginally better than Obama, some things will be much better than Obama, but the majority of things will stay the same, with a conservative rather than liberal tilt. At least in this election I feel I can vote for a Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson) who is actually as qualified to be President as the two major party candidates (maybe more so). In this election, a vote for Johnson is certainly better than no vote at all.

  7. stan:
    "Paul Ryan came and spoke today in Lakewood, Colorado, very near my home. The high school gym was packed, with over 3000 present. Most of the folks there were local, but one couple seated next to me was from Durango and had driven six hours to get there.

    To say the crowd received Ryan with enthusiasm would be an understatement. In fact, his reception became literally thunderous, as many started stamping or pounding on the gym benches, and they repeated this several times when Ryan made strong points.

    In his talk, Ryan was all substance, avoiding cheap campaign shots yet repeatedly bringing the audience to their feet by making clear, powerful points about energy independence, the need to deregulate, fiscal soundness, the difference between a culture of self-reliance and one of dependence, and the doctrines of Natural Law and the Declaration of Independence. That’s right, he spoke about Natural Law and the origin of rights to a campaign crowd, and they got it. In fact, along with his discussion of energy independence, it was one of the two high points of the event. I can’t remember when I’ve seen a candidate address a mass audience at such a high level and pull it off. But he did."

    Ummmmm. I don't see Obama or Clueless Joe making this argument.

  8. caseyboy:

    The fact that Romney can indeed run the "company" better than Obama is sufficient reason to turn it over to him. We need more time for a paradigm shift in the electorate. There are some young people breaking through the fog. We need time. Check out

    Think you can get the country back after 4 more Obama years?

    I think Ryan's head and heart are in the right place.

  9. LarryG:

    Ryan voted for 2 wars, Medicare Part D, the bank and the auto bailouts and cut taxes - the result being the annual structural deficit.

    he is no fiscal conservative. He'd vote to have the govt decide woman's health issues and he'd vote to tax and spend money he does not have to fund DOD.

    He does have a track record and it's a record of spending money he does not have.

    Both he and Romney are as Coyote suggested - very much "top down" big govt guys.

  10. Andrew_M_Garland:

    The present and future of politics:

    "We tried Democracy and a Constitution. They just didn't work. It is time to discard the failed policies of the past and adopt a good, kind, rational, sincere, caring, people-oriented, totalitarian police state, based on science and the best evidence."

    "A job for everyone, planned by the altruistic best, without the crazy duplication of our current world. Work for the future. Work for the family. Work for the government."

    (I predict this, but I don't like it one bit)

  11. John S:

    Something to think about: If Obama squeaks by in November, Ryan is the immediate front runner for 2016. Given the financial calamity of another four years of Obama, Ryan could be a shoo-in.

  12. Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master:

    >>>> Given the financial calamity of another four years of Obama, Ryan could be a shoo-in.

    You're making a big assumption about elections in 2016.

    The economy tanks bad enough, that's a recipe for national disaster and central authority over-reach.

    And The One has every intention of making it tank as bad as he can.

  13. foxmarks:

    Romney is a scion of the same Harvard Keynesian school as the fellows pulling Obama’s economic strings. That school pretends to know more than it possibly can know.

    That we (libertarianish types) so easily fall into the language of the President fixing the economy is evidence that the statists control the chessboard.

    My response to the recognition that everyone who is a player at the national level is trapped in a failed model that cannot possibly avoid collapse is to urge more attention to local races. Imagine if every City Council or County Board started inching toward liberty. This is incrementalism that ratchets away from statism. It takes the liberty conversation and applies it to real situations, not national abstractions. This is how we build a deep and broad bench that can begin to take back the field.

    Plus, when the collapse comes, local jurisdictions will have to fend for themselves. Local liberty candidates put us in better position to build or rebuild what the FedGov cannot.