Ron Paul doesn't endorse Paulville, FSP

[Alex Libman]

From Politco.com's The Crypt blog -- Paulville? Count Ron Paul out --

The founders of Paulville recently announced the purchase of the first 50 acres in West Texas on which they plan to build one of their "gated communities containing 100 percent Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty."

One man who won't be moving there anytime soon: Ron Paul.

"I don't think that's the solution," said the still-running Republican presidential candidate.  "You want to spread out and be as pervasive as possible."

The driving idea behind Paulville -- that like-minded lovers of liberty should band together -- is not a new one.  In 2003, thousands of libertarians vowed to move to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.  Paul was no more sanguine on that effort, saying that population spillover from Massachusetts had overwhelmed it.

"They outnumbered us, the liberals leaving Massachusetts," he says.  "They wanted to pay less taxes, but then again, they wanted more government and they outnumbered the ones who wanted less government."

Paulville, meanwhile, is much less likely than New Hampshire to attract Massachusetts liberals.  But it does boast some green possibilities that a Northeast liberal might like.  Snuggled deep into West Texas, the plot, according to Paulville.org [SITE DOWN ATM], was chosen for its high amount of sunshine - the better to power solar panels and keep off the grid.

The community is structured as a co-op; freedom-loving denizens can purchase plots as small as one acre and are not required to use the co-op's water or energy supply.

But dropping out and creating an isolated community isn't the answer, says Paul, a congressman from Texas.  "You don't want the ideas to be centered in one place," he says.  "But it shows how desperate people are for freedom."

Consistent with his beliefs in liberty, however, he doesn't outright oppose Paulville.  "I don't see that as a solution, but it can't hurt anything either," he said.

Paul's non-endorsement of Paulville comes at what seems to be a perilous time for the infant community.  On Monday, just days after the announcement of the land purchase, the Web site Paulville.org went out of existence.  No contact information had been on the site when it was live; phone calls and e-mails to the site administrator over the last several days have gone unreturned.

[ADDED DIGG]

 

[Kat Kanning]

So Ron Paul turns out to be a politician, telling freestaters what they want to hear while he's here campaigning?  Surprising. 

[Alex Libman]

I think what Goddard said on another forum is more probable - Paul was quoted out of context.  If that's the case, hope Free Staters will find a way to "save face".  I was really hoping to see one movement flow into the other...

[Kat Kanning]

That happens a lot. 

[David]

Quote<Paul was no more sanguine on that effort, saying that population spillover from Massachusetts had overwhelmed it.

"They outnumbered us, the liberals leaving Massachusetts," he says.  "They wanted to pay less taxes, but then again, they wanted more mafia and they outnumbered the ones who wanted less mafia.">

The republicans have two major problems, that will stifle every attempt at achieving any sort of liberty, (and that is only the repubs that want liberty).  One, the blame everything on the liberals, two, they are the law and order party.  Liberals promote a lot of bad stuff, but dispite their nearly religious faith in the gov't, it is only some gov't they have blind faith in, (their gov't of course), and they are far more likely to ignore/disobey bad or unjust law.  Paul should be encouraging more disobediance against bad law, including the dumb stuff the 'liberals' legislate. 

Since he doesn't seem that interested in pushing back bad law, except through the 'hallowed halls of congress, I believe his revolution will fail.  He doesn't understand that liberty as a culture is dead.  Yeah, millions want their freedom, but liberty means you don't trample on others freedom unless they threaten you or hurt you.  The only potential solution that has popped up in the last 30-40 years has been the fsp, and other similar ideas.  But he wants to continue his incredibly spread out educational approach, that has not done much in terms of progress for the libertarians, and prolly won't work for the republican liberty caucus. 
Liberty is a culture, a way of life.  You cannot just educate people into a way of life, they have to choose.  And it should be obvious to people that most are not choosing. 

[Puke]

Oh well. I took the bumper sticker off this week.

The Scorpion and the Frog

  A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion
says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

  The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

      Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

[Kat Kanning]

I'd rather keep believing there's one nice guy in DC, and he was misquoted.

[margomaps]

Paul should be encouraging more disobediance against bad law, including the dumb stuff the 'liberals' legislate.

He routinely invokes MLK and Gandhi in his speeches, encouraging civil disobedience.  Routinely.  If you haven't noticed this, you haven't been paying close enough attention!

But he wants to continue his incredibly spread out educational approach, that has not done much in terms of progress for the libertarians, and prolly won't work for the republican liberty caucus. 
Liberty is a culture, a way of life.  You cannot just educate people into a way of life, they have to choose.  And it should be obvious to people that most are not choosing.

There's nothing wrong with educating people.  It may be an uphill battle, but it's still a worthy one, and probably necessary.  Achieving liberty is going to take a multi-pronged approach, and I'm not going to stand in the way of one of the prongs because I don't think it's the perfect method.   

[margomaps]

I'd rather keep believing there's one nice guy in DC, and he was misquoted.

Although it certainly is possible that Paul was misquoted -- I can't find any corroborating evidence for this quote -- let's suppose for the moment that he was not misquoted.  How does the quote posted here indicate that Paul "doesn't endorse..the FSP?"  Let's look at it again:

"They outnumbered us, the liberals leaving Massachusetts," he says.  "They wanted to pay less taxes, but then again, they wanted more gov't and they outnumbered the ones who wanted less gov't."

What he expressed in this quote is a very common, albeit probably incorrect, commentary on what's happened demographically and politically with NH and MA.  The old "MA liberals are screwing up NH" line is repeated constantly.  It's apparently ingrained in people's minds since I frequently hear various forms of this statement from people all over the country, including people who know nothing about NH whatsoever.

Even if Paul said this, and even if it were true, how does this translate into "Paul doesn't endorse the FSP"??  There was no talk of endorsement or non-endorsement in his quote.  And he said nothing controversial, nothing disparaging toward the FSP.  In fact, he said nothing about the FSP at all.  For all we know, his quote was part of a conversation that went something like this:

<Reporter> What's your take on why the traditional "libertarian" NH is starting to become more and more liberal?
<Paul> They outnumbered us, the liberals leaving Massachusetts.  They wanted to pay less taxes, but then again, they wanted more gov't and they outnumbered the ones who wanted less gov't.

See what I mean?

Paul made (or was purported to have made) a rather general and common statement about liberals in MA, and suddenly he "doesn't endorse the FSP?"  Sorry, I was there in Manchester last September and watched as Paul was interviewed by Irena Goddard.  He was enthusiastic about the prospect of the FSP helping to solidify liberty in NH.  Although I wouldn't call his statement an explicit "endorsement" necessarily, he still clearly thought it was a good idea.  You can watch him on the youtube clip and judge for yourself.

[slim]

Turns out CBS picked up the story too. A little press is better then none for the FSP.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4087724.shtml

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Margo does have a good point, Paul saying that could easily, and purposely or not, be made out to be different than what he meant. Not that Ron Paul's opinion is the end all and be all of anything, especially the FSP.

[KBCraig]

Paul's words have frequently been mis-reported by the MSM as meaning quite the opposite of what he actually said in context. The best example was his announcement that the campaign would be scaled down and re-focused: news outlets around the country reported that he had "dropped out", when he had done no such thing.

[Alex Libman]

Turns out CBS picked up the story too. A little press is better then none for the FSP.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4087724.shtml

I agree that "any press is good press" at the moment.  It might not convince people to consider FSP seriously, but at least they would be introduced to the idea of NH being a libertarian hot-spot.  This could come into play if this person is deciding where to vacation some time in the future, or when something else comes up.  In the long term, though, the FSP will need to show effectiveness in order to attract more people.

[tracysaboe]

You notice.

They didn't do a "direct quote" of Paul regarding the Free State Project.

Tracy

[Russell Kanning]

not a biggie to me .... the guy isn't going to be leaving northern mexico anytime soon .... he has a cush job with the government