Which one will be the Peace and Prosperity Party?

Neither party understands the concept of non-interventionism and free markets. Our future depends on Peace and Prosperity.

Democrats oppose foreign entanglements when Republicans start the entanglements. Republicans oppose Democrat entanglements. Which party will take the non-interventionist position and transform foreign policy? This is something so vitally important the American people must demand it. Yes, we need a superior defense, but government has misled the public regarding justificiations for foreign interventions and the build up of weapons the military doesn't even want or need. Military Keynesianism has to stop -- no more interventions in the affairs of other nations. We need to freely trade with other nations and share culture and ideas, but militarism and Global Police actions have to stop.

Who is not voting? Can Rand Paul get them to vote?

In this Weekly Standard article, Rand Paul is depicted as a different kind of politician, different even from his father. Ron Paul, Rand's father who was a representative from Texas, delivered a libertarian, non-interventionist message during his career that caused a lot of heat in rallies but failed to garner broad support. The elder Paul, however, was able to bring new voters to the voting booths, mostly young, single issue voters who learned a little about Austrian economics along the way. Can Rand build a broad coalition of dissatisfied conservatives, true liberals disgusted with the Progressives's statist agenda, non-interventionists who are beyond war-weary and ready to vote to get us out of the mideast, and new voters who lean libertarian on most issues but aren't that politically active?

The key, I think, is creating a larger pie. Just like our economic problems will be solved by creating a larger pie, even many pies through a free market revolution, in order to get government out of the way, politicians like Rand Paul will have to expand the voting base. On average, around 100 million qualified American voters don't vote or vote infrequently. Oddly, there are very few studies that tell us why there are so many non-voters or infrequent voters, or who they are. Even the one study I could find of California non-voters wasn't all that informative. The study revealed that although most people think it's important to vote, non-voters and infrequent voters say they're too busy. It could be that voting is too difficult for people with full-time jobs and a family. In other articles which simply suggested reasons why there are many non-voters and infrequent, one reason is that people have become cynical watching Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert and don't think their votes will matter. I've seen this argument quite often, even from some who're very intelligent and highly educated.

Although some very smart people believe individual votes don't matter, regarding the make-up of non-voters and infrequent voters, the study shows that education levels have a lot to do with who votes and who doesn't, with those receiving more education voting more. About 59% of the non-voters are caucasian. Young people vote less than old people, but we knew that.

The Democratic Party has put much effort growing the voting pie, trying to create more voters. But Republicans shouldn't get into a contest with Democrats offering government goodies to get more votes, or promising special interest groups favors for their support. This is too detrimental to the country, and any victory would be a Pyrrhic victory. No, politicans like Rand Paul have to gain new voters through attraction, not through promotion.

Most of the non-voters, I imagine, are turned off by promotion, plus they don't believe the promises. The feeding trough in Washington DC has become so big and valuable, it attracts the worst in society, and it even attracts those disgusted by it who must play the lobbying game or lose out to a competitor who knows more about the political game than business, but, nevertheless, could win in the market through political favors. When voters witness the Money Game in DC, and how politicans are bought and sold, the potential voters lose confidence in the system and stop participating in politics. I don't know how many times I've heard people dismiss government as a bunch of crooks who'd sell their mothers to stay in power.

I believe politicians like Rand Paul can attract many of these non-voters and infrequent voters. But Paul will have to maintain integrity and resist the temptation to play the political, crony games. It's a herculean effort for a Republican renegade like Rand Paul to get his message out through media megaphones. Instead, media will likely shut out Paul so that they, media, can define him and those like him, such as Ted Cruz, Tim Lee and Justin Amash. If Paul gets attention through the new. alternative media, then mainstream media, mostly supportive of Obama and Democrats in general, will begin their hit jobs to counter the excitement (especially cable news outlets like MSNBC). If Paul decides to run for President, he'll have to innovate to get his message out. Paul has already shown a gift for innovation, so I think he's up to the task.

Libertarians don't need Ron Paul or Gary Johnson as leaders

Libertarianism, in large part, is about individualism, which is seen now as a sin against the community by many. Libertarians don't need groups and leaders, we need only to do our part to create change. Each person who values individual rights and the concept of non-coercion/intervention should actively work against our statist system in everyway possible. Sometimes this might include being a part of a group, but I don't see how grouping up helps much. Protesting in the streets is not likely to change anything. With modern technology we can make our ideas heard and understood by spreading them across cyber-space and talking one on one with as many interested people as possible. Then we can vote for libertarian leaning candidates, or the lesser of two evils until we can change the make-up of DC. We can demand limits on government power. There are myriad ways that libertarians can work locally and nationally and globally to keep the message of liberty alive.

Waiting on Ron Paul to signal his presidential preference is anti-libertarian, and voting for Johnson is just empty symbolism, especially since  Johnson doesn't understand and accept the main body of libertarian thought.

Jonathan Bernstein thinks libertarians are nutty

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/153555415.html

Bernstein's intellectual analysis of libertarian ideas is that they are nutty, and no one likes them, so there. Wow, he really deconstructed Dr. Paul and the Paulites.

Bernstein represents the faux-intellectuals recorded throughout history as apologists for State power -- they defend the State as the walls crumble and snottily denigrate those who are pointing to the Fall.

Ron Paul and his supporters aren't fighting out of vanity

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299374/paul-s-delegate-scramble-katrina-trinko#

They are fighting to influence what the GOP will stand for in 2012 and going into the future. It's about time someone started worrying about ideas and what role we want government to play in our economy and in our lives. If Romney can be influenced by Paul, we might have a chance to make some headway in allowing economic liberty to thrive. If Paul does nothing else but shine a bright light on the Fed so that congress acts to demand tansparency, then he will be a hero. If Paul can get government to audit the military industrial complex and analyze the relationships between defense industry corporations and the Pentagon, and hawkish congresspeople, then he will be a sure enough hero. Paul is just the type of unlikely hero for which America is famous.