Ron Paul’s chances at winning the Republican nomination are frightfully slim. He has put up quite the fight thus far, securing much of the youth vote and giving the other frontrunners a run for their money, but realistically he has little chance. But regardless of how he fares in the coming months, Ron Paul has already achieved more than the libertarians could ever have hoped. He has secured a place in the Republican Party for libertarians to nest. He has won them a home, a platform, a new staging point for their future campaigns. And more than that, he has helped bring about a shift within the conservative movement— a libertarian renaissance of sorts— and by doing so, has done a great service for the Republican Party as a whole. 

            But don’t merely take my word for it. Just look at how the Republican Party has changed since the Bush years. Remember back to when a Republican controlled government waged multiple wars in the Middle East, infringed upon personal liberties in the name of patriotism, and bailed out failing companies with TARP. Remember back to the gross inconsistencies within that party’s ideology, which professed the importance of a free market economy but was not the least bit hesitant to tread over individual liberties on issues of privacy and morality. Indeed, the party of Bush was anything but the party of small government, and non-interference. The party of Bush actually expanded the power of the already overbearing federal government. And one can be sure that the party of Bush would not have seen a Ron Paul reach such incredible heights, while today, he is winning over a great number of Republican voters.

            Ron Paul’s candidacy undoubtedly shows a definite shift within the Republican Party. It is now seeing a growing emphasis on the importance of small government, not merely in the economic sector, but all around. The libertarian movement has helped teach the Republicans that ideological inconsistency is, quite literally, bad for business. It turns off entire demographics of voters who would otherwise support the party. It has taught them that if you are going to advocate for small government, you cannot be partial about where it is “small.” And this has been the libertarians’ greatest kindness to the Republican Party.

            True, the unlikely friendship between these two movements is not entirely without its tensions. To many libertarians, the Republican Party is just as bad as the Democratic one. To many, both are guilty of expanding the government beyond its natural bounds and both are accomplices in creating and perpetuating the redundant bureaucracies that have so plagued our system. The Democrats chalk out reams of unending regulations; the Republicans spend mountains of taxpayer dollars on further expanding the military. Yet libertarians would do well to sort out their differences, for if they want any hope of someday securing high office, they will have to work through the Republican Party.

            Let the cynics complain that there is no stage for third parties in our system. Now more than ever, this idea is being challenged. For years libertarian candidates have been running for the nation’s highest office, aiming more for a platform to voice their ideas than for an actual chance of winning elections. For years these candidates have seen little success, (as one would expect) overshadowed and unwelcomed by the two mega-parties. But now, after decades of struggling for attention and seeking to influence public opinion, a staunch libertarian is a major candidate in the primary of a major party.

            A major party acts like a filter for third parties and their ideologies, ever refining and ever fine-tuning the message until it is compatible with the larger party’s basic values. It will sand down the rough edges, moderate the most extreme aspects, and market it to its political base. True, the finished product will be more diluted and surely disappoint the staunchest supporters, but nevertheless, with any luck, the basic ideals of the movement will have made an impact on the larger party, and with time, could become a permanent part of a multifaceted whole.

            And this is precisely what seems to be happening. The Republicans are not just welcoming the growing libertarian influence into their ranks, but are allowing it to change them for the better. Many libertarians I expect will feel somewhat differently than I, but such is the nature of speculation. For now, we will all just have to wait and see. And, if the Republicans are in fact experiencing an ideological shift, perhaps even the most zealous of my libertarian acquaintances will someday grow to like their new conservative bedfellows.

How can advocates of liberty make the biggest impact? How can we persuade our fellow Americans to demand liberty? In “How to Win the Battle for Liberty,” Alex Epstein, Founder of the Center for Industrial Progress will explain why “Aspirational Advocacy” is the key to effective and motivating persuasion. Drawing on past and present case studies, from the success of Ayn Rand’s Atlas
Shrugged to the failure to stop ObamaCare, “How to Win the Battle for Liberty” will give you proven strategies for turning the table on statists. Alex Epstein is Founder and Director of the Center for Industrial Progress and a former Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. www.industrialprogress.net.  He is incredibly knowledgeable and a fantastic speaker so this is one SFL event you won’t want to miss!

Alex Epstein is a former fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, former student of Duke University in North Carolina, and is currently the president of the Center For Industrial Progress where he promotes free market energy policies and debates environmental groups such as Greenpeace.  He has numerous TV and radio appearances, and his monthly podcast “Power Hour” features many leading energy thinkers.  The title of his talk will be “How to Win the Battle for Liberty”, and will address many of the issues he currently deals with as president of the Center For Industrial Progress.  Look for more information on the Epstein event to be posted later this week!

Come learn about where you fit into the seasteading movement at 7 pm in 87 Evans Hall!

Michael Keenan, President of The Seasteading Institute will be speaking about progress being made towards the establishment of autonomous floating communities–seasteads–in​ international waters. He will also provide information on a recently-launched volunteer research program, aimed at university-level students who wish to research practical obstacles facing early seasteading business ventures. The Institute has prepared a list of questions and challenges that need to be addressed, and are seeking talented, entrepreneurial students from a variety of academic disciplines to conduct seasteading-related research as independent study or a for-credit internship.

This is a critical period of development for seasteading business ventures. Billionaire Silicon Valley investor and entrepreneur Peter Thiel recently agreed to lead the seed funding round for Blueseed, the first true seasteading venture, which is trying to create an offshore, visa-free startup incubator on a retrofitted ship 12 miles off the coast of Half Moon Bay. The Seasteading Institute aims to enable several more businesses over the next few years, by providing a generalizable body of research that dampens uncertainty for investors and entrepreneurs who are willing to make the leap from the land to the ocean.

The efforts of a single individual or small group can have a huge impact on the burgeoning seasteading industry. Even if you do not plan to make a career in the seasteading movement, our projects provide an opportunity to gain real world problem-solving experience, and signal initiative to potential future employers.  You can learn more about the program at the new Students section of our website: http://​www.seasteading.org/​community/students/

The talk will be followed by a social event in Hell (2521 College Avenue – Downstairs), where students can learn more about potential research projects and discuss other seasteading-related topics.

Photos of Kim Dotcom after apprehension

Megaupload Users Look into Suing U.S. Over Lost Files

Megaupload’s Kim Dotcom Loses ‘Call of Duty’ Top Spot While in Prison

Kim Dotcom Plans to Release Full Length Album

General background (arrest, Dotcom’s assets, etc.)

Location and Time:

87 Evans Hall

Tuesday January 24

7:00 – 8:30 p.m.

Is Ron Paul truly beneficial to liberty? Are his positions on immigration and abortion libertarian enough to be worthy of support? Or, is he a just rambling old racist who will only wreak havoc on outsiders’ image of our movement? These questions and many more permeate an endless array of articles, blog posts, and Facebook threads scattered across the Internet. At the end of the day, these debates often boil down to one central question regarding how to implement libertarian social change. Namely, should the movement engage in political action through endorsing a candidate like Ron Paul? Or, should it remain content with the educational niche it has carved out for itself through think tanks, lectures, and literature?

Quite frankly, I find this debate to be completely futile because it is premised on the misguided assumption that education and political action are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it is perfectly possible—and, in my opinion, healthy—for the libertarian movement engage inboth education and political action. Indeed, it’s already happening! As the old saying goes, it is never wise to “put all your eggs in one basket.” So, why are so many libertarians seeking some one-size-fits-all strategy to social change? Dare I say, that sounds rather statist!

Rather, for liberty to truly flourish, our movement should resemble the market principles we so loudly laud through encouraging individuals to engage with their comparative advantage. The more education-oriented among us can work at universities, think tanks, and nonprofits dedicated to promoting liberty through intellectual means, while the election-oriented can take action through political parties, campaigns, special interest groups. In this manner, the two camps of education and politics can happily coexist. In fact, like the yin yang concept of Chinese philosophy, this coexistence often give rise to each other.

Education and politics: the yin and yang of libertarian social change.

To illustrate this elusive concept and return to Ron Paul, I’d like to share an anecdote from Students For Liberty‘s first Campus Coordinator Retreat in July 2010. During the icebreaker session on day one, SFL’s first class of Campus Coordinators were asked to introduce ourselves and briefly explain how we were introduced to libertarianism. Personally, reading Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as a teenager made me “see the light,” and I expected most students to answer with a similar story of some educational experience that caused them to convert. Instead,almost all of the SFL leaders present that day proudly proclaimed that it was Ron Paul who introduced them libertarianism, and since his 2008 campaign, they had been thoroughly engrossed in the philosophy of freedom. In other words, it was Ron Paul’s political presidential campaign than inspired them to educationally explore liberty.

Thus, contrary to the common misconception, education and political action are not mutually exclusive. Rather, like the yin and yang, they strengthen and give meaning to each other. Just as political action is meaningless without an underling ideology, so too are ideas useless without attempting to implement them in action.

So, while it may seem unlikely that Ron Paul wins this year’s Republican primary, it is a disservice to liberty to ignore his “r3VOLution.” Ron Paul singlehandedly reinvigorated the libertarian movement in 2008, introducing thousands, if not millions, of people to the philosophy of freedom—probably including most of SFL’s leadership! This year, he is doing the same with an even stronger campaign and popular support. That is why I as an individual am both a proud leader of SFL and donor to Ron Paul 2012—because I recognize that education and politics are not mutually exclusive but rather are two counterparts to a unitary libertarian movement.

To be charitable to DeLong, I will assume that Ron Paul does indeed hold the views that were expressed in the newsletter, even though Paul has publicly denied that he does (Lew Rockwell is the individual who actually wrote those newsletters).  Even if we assume that Paul agrees with every word of the newsletters, it should be obvious that the policies of our current President are far more racist than Paul’s political report.  The following question should illustrate this point: Which is worse, bombing and torturing individuals because they belong to a certain ethnic group or making highly offensive remarks about an ethnic group in a newsletter?  This can be made into an even more general question: Which is worse, murdering someone or labeling someone with an offensive term?

I believe that killing or torturing someone is worse than labeling someone with an offensive term, and I sincerely hope you do too.  Ron Paul is vehemently against the wars in the Middle East and torture, whereas Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan as well as continued the Bush Administration policies of torture and detention.  It should be noted that Obama could end the detention and torture policies as well as the wars whenever he wants, but chooses not to do so.  Ron Paul has claimed that if he were to be elected, he would end the wars and stop torture and detention immediately.  His voting record in Congress unabashedly echoes this claim.

So, here is what you are supporting when you support Barack Obama: