Why things are looking up thanks to Ron Paul

Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong.

— Dandamis, sage (4c BCE)

Kairos is an aspect of argument. It means “time,” but not as in time on a clock. It means time as in perfect timing, or an idea that’s time has come.

In America, it feels as if the time has come (again) for an old idea: classical liberalism, or as we know it today, Libertarianism. Love it or hate it, people can’t ignore it, appealing to the fiery idealist and weathered pragmatist alike.

As memes go, Libertarian principles are straightforward, clearly formed and easily conveyed from one mind to the next. The premises are based on simple truths we learned as children. Don’t start fights. Don’t tell other people what to do. Might doesn’t mean right. And don’t take what doesn’t belong to you (especially the rights of others).

Standard bearer Ron Paul is the most visible libertarian-leaning voice. But what distinguishes this “3rd way” from both Republicans and Democrats is that the ideas are bigger than the bringers of the ideas. Ask most any libertarian candidate about their ambitions and they’ll tell you, “I’m just a messenger. It’s all about the message.”

Perhaps glimmers of hope shine brightest in the dark. It certainly got dark in America for a moment. Post 9/11 brought out the best and worst in us. For a time it seemed that dems and GOPers were going to successfully replace America with a darker version of itself. But the legacy of Ron Paul may signal a new dawn.

The Paullites have pierced the veil of the two-party system. They’ve shown us that, as Dandimas may have spoken to Alexander, when we considered only Democrats and Republicans, we were stuck with both sides being wrong.

However it turns out for Dr. Paul, America will eternally be in his debt for giving us – dare I say it – real hope. Perhaps not everyone has bought into the victim mentality of the Left and the police state mentality of the Right.

Now, in addition to left or right, we have up.


The contradiction of collectivist atheists (guest post)

This is a long(ish) comment by polpaul to an earlier story that required its own space.

I’m not looking for the universal constant (well, I am, but not here).

My only point is to concur with the thesis of the [“Why Atheists act like Creationists…”] blog post, that non-theists cannot insist upon treating politics as if it is above the very system their logic claims produced it. If natural selection begets ethics, and ethics begets politics, then one cannot object to the notion that politics is a product of natural selection. Which begs the question why the term “social Darwinism” is a term of derision. [To dive deeper, another commenter suggests to read up on sociobiology.]

Not to stray from the topic, but I would go even further in agreeing that collectivists, especially those of an atheist stripe, tend to try to have it both ways. They veer toward statist politics that tend toward collectivist (read, coerced) solutions, while claiming that nature must be free to grow into its most productive genetic coding. I see an unholy alliance here between the theistic and atheistic collectivists.

But I digress from the central point…

There is a profound practicality to understanding the nature of ethics and politics. The most immediate example would be being able to spot a politician who is trying to get away with having it both ways–claim a non-theistic ethic, but use a non-natural system to explain (or impose) his politics or ethics.

Theists have it pretty easy here. They just point to their book, or what not, and they’re pretty much done.

Atheists bear an immense burden, which I think is assisted in knowing the nature of their ethical impulses and imperatives.