Ron Paul needed 10%

[Jim Johnson]

Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.

http://phys.org/news/2011-07-minority-scientists-ideas.html

[Tom Sawyer]

This fits into my belief in a "Bright and Shining Future".

I think your naming Ron Paul as needing 10% of the vote misses the mark some. 10% of the population has to embrace the idea, not 10% of the electorate. In addition Ron Paul is just one of the messengers.

Good and hopeful article.

Things like the Free State Project can "infect" a population.

Now we just have to not have the "dooms day cult" libertarians be the voice of the movement. A positive, uplifting, hopeful message instead of the litany of examples of how the tyrannical forces will be, as Orwell feared, "a boot stamping on a human face forever."

[Jim Johnson]

You are right.  Ron Paul is an indicator, in the same way the FSP is an indicator.  The FSP is still very small, as was Ron Paul's 6%.

After a believe reaches 10% there will still be a length of time before the idea takes hold in the general public. 

10% is just the tipping point.

[dalebert]

Now we just have to not have the "dooms day cult" libertarians be the voice of the movement. A positive, uplifting, hopeful message instead of the litany of examples of how the tyrannical forces will be, as Orwell feared, "a boot stamping on a human face forever."

It frightens me how so many are getting frustrated and impatient and have this all-or-nothing attitude suddenly. Like all is lost and there's no point to living under current regimes. Of course the logical conclusion from there is to go all in, so to speak. Push in all your chips no matter what, guts and glory.

Well, I happen to be enjoying my life. I'm not miserable or hopeless about everything. I don't like governments and they keep messing with me, but I still have tons of things that I enjoy about my life DESPITE the bastards. I'm not going to succumb to this new culture of martyrdom in the liberty movement. It's not freedom. It's the worst kind of peer pressure to risk horrible odds or make ridiculous sacrifices on half-assed, poorly planned shenanigans that people do out of desperation and impatience.

I know it often seems like we're constantly getting less free but it just isn't so. I've seen some very good arguments for how there is in fact a trend toward more freedom over time, even if it's a 3 steps forward, 2 steps back manner, or even if it's not always the exact types of freedom that we want at first. I'm optimistic and I'll keep being an activist, of course, but I'm also going to live my life.

[dalebert]

Now we just have to not have the "dooms day cult" libertarians be the voice of the movement. A positive, uplifting, hopeful message instead of the litany of examples of how the tyrannical forces will be, as Orwell feared, "a boot stamping on a human face forever."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=es-wq5aZKAQ

[Tom Sawyer]

Now we just have to not have the "dooms day cult" libertarians be the voice of the movement. A positive, uplifting, hopeful message instead of the litany of examples of how the tyrannical forces will be, as Orwell feared, "a boot stamping on a human face forever."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=es-wq5aZKAQ

Isn't his 15 minutes of fame over yet? No, some folks are still giving him a platform to be a blowhard.

I say grab your rifle, put on your war paint and run screaming into their bayonets. Otherwise STFU... cause it's just inflammatory rhetoric... Mr. Drunk Driving is Fun for the Whole Family. Now that behavior deserves a violent response. 

[Jim Johnson]

If you've been kicked out of the FSP you may have posted a Cantwell VDO.

[KBCraig]

Now we just have to not have the "dooms day cult" libertarians be the voice of the movement. A positive, uplifting, hopeful message instead of the litany of examples of how the tyrannical forces will be, as Orwell feared, "a boot stamping on a human face forever."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=es-wq5aZKAQ

Isn't his 15 minutes of fame over yet? No, some folks are still giving him a platform to be a blowhard.

I say grab your rifle, put on your war paint and run screaming into their bayonets. Otherwise STFU... cause it's just inflammatory rhetoric... Mr. Drunk Driving is Fun for the Whole Family. Now that behavior deserves a violent response. 

This was a rare evening where I could listen to an hour+ video, so I did.

While Mr. Drunk Driving While Angry was louder, he certainly didn't dominate the debate. Ian and Derrick and most of the questioners certainly didn't agree with him.

I want nothing to do with Cantwell. He's an asshole, and advocates things that I certainly don't agree with.

That said, in this discussion panel he did a fair job of explaining, in an intellectual way, his position.

If I can sum up by referring to Claire Wolfe's famous quote, most of here still agree it's too early even if it's justified. Cantwell argues that it's justified whether it's too early or not.

[Tom Sawyer]

If I can sum up by referring to Claire Wolfe's famous quote, most of here still agree it's too early even if it's justified. Cantwell argues that it's justified whether it's too early or not.

Claire Wolfe's book was focused on the 101 ways to salvage freedom...

Folks of Cantwell's ilk love to get attention by talking about their "cold dead fingers" position. So far I've yet to encounter one of those types that does more than talk the talk. Powerchuter comes to mind, he gave up his guns quite easily.

So in the end they just want the freedom to talk about their violent response... they do, just not here. 

Troll, plant, idiot, or attention seeker... doesn't matter, in the end nothing good comes from it. They want to agitate and it will be the more unstable that will be triggered by their rhetoric. The LP dealt with the violence issue 40 odd years ago... it's frustrating to see that each generation of activists seems to need to relearn the same lessons.

[Free libertarian]

Some obvious things aren't always obvious to some.  When that is overcome, we can stop burning witches.

[dalebert]

Troll, plant, idiot, or attention seeker... doesn't matter, in the end nothing good comes from it. They want to agitate and it will be the more unstable that will be triggered by their rhetoric. The LP dealt with the violence issue 40 odd years ago... it's frustrating to see that each generation of activists seems to need to relearn the same lessons.

Exactly. I watched the video. They both seemed to represent extreme sides of the argument. I think most people are like "Sure, it's probably justified. So what? It's just stupid to get violent."

The other side sounded like religious kooks to me. Whenever I hear "Peace starts in your heart" or some other woo-woo, I just think "Can we actually have a conversation with real words that have objective meaning?" That crap is just a meaningless strawman. I went down that road for a while exploring Quakerism. I'm glad I did, but I came out the other side realizing that, while more likable in many ways, it's still just another religion that's not based in rational thought.

They definitely deserve some credit. For a religion they talk things out and think a LOT and that's good. But they still cling to a few things religiously and the ultra-pacificism is one of those.