Not a member? Sign up now
"Pin-ups for Ron Paul" use sexiness to spread libertarian gospel
By Jeff MillsNovember 29th, 2011, 9:15 pmComments (10)
Libertarian GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul can obviously use all the help he can get, and a group of twelve lovely ladies who happen to be Paul fanatics are happy to oblige.
"Pin-ups for Ron Paul" is a project headed by Juliet Annerino, a personal trainer and musician, who previously organized the "Hotties 4 Ron Paul" pin-up calendar in 2008. The current SFW calendar features a dozen students, writers, artists, and businesswomen who put their pulchritude to good use in spreading the philosophy of Dr. Paul. The calendar also includes quotes from important historical figures such as Einstein, MLK, and Gandhi. So if you're into limited government and limited clothing, $24.95 will buy you a bevy of libertarian lovelies, with twenty percent of the proceeds going to Paul's campaign.
"Pin-ups for Ron Paul" has also just released a new promotional video, which you can see below, that includes behind the scenes making-of footage, as well as shout-outs from Stephen Colbert and Russia Today. The seventy-six-year-old Paul is a longshot to occupy the White House, but if you're one of his supporters, you'll still have "a chance to see a pretty girl while also reading an educational and inspirational quote from Ron Paul," as Annerino put it.
I must say, I experienced a bit of cognitive dissonance when I first saw the Texas congressman on the cover of a pin-up calendar. One usually associates Paul with the young male twentysomethings who are conspicuously vocal at his debates. But it's a clever idea. Perhaps soon we'll be seeing a "Beefcake for Bachmann" calendar. And if you're a Paul supporter but already have too many calendars, there's always Ron Paul Swag, where you can purchase a Ron Paul golf ball set, or a black "Revolution" hoodie. Because nothing says libertarian like golfing at an exclusive country club.
Tags
Ron Paul
Commentarium (10 Comments)
See, this is exactly an example of something I don't get. Are these women being paid? If they're not, and if they truly believe in the libertarian gospel of singlemindedly achieving financially-self-interested greatness, why are they wasting time on this?
In fact, that whole question bothers me about libertarians. If the thing that will be best for society is for you to act totally in your own self-interest, why are you going around evangelizing others to act in their own self-interest? The supposed impact and benefits to society of your individual contribution to the Ron Paul revolution will probably be so small and uncertain, that even if they hit you in your lifetime, they won't help your bank account as much as just having spent your time on you know, making money.
The truly financially-self-interested, actual libertarian behavior would be to not waste time promoting Ron Paul or libertarianism. If there is room for compromise in that society gets better through a mix of financial self-interest and altruistic behavior, then that undermines libertarianism's basic premise. And if you try to expand the meaning of "self-interest" (a la George Homens' Rational Actor) to encompass things beyond one's personal finances, and beyond even the vaguest consistent value system ("personal power" for example) then self-interest becomes meaningless as a definition ("what if what makes me happy is paying taxes that go to education for others?" could be brought in just as easily as "what if what makes me happy is spending my time to educate others about Ron Paul?"). I mean, I'm sure there are true-believer libertarians out there who aren't spreading the gospel but are busy accumulating lots of personal wealth.
But what the heck are the rest of them doing?
The whole thing has always left me scratching my head. I just can't figure it out.
Where did you get the idea that libertarians believe in "achieving financially self-interested greatness" and acting only in their own self-interest? Libertarians believe (naively in my opinion) in "limited government". I think you are confusing libertarians with Randian Objectivists.
"If the thing that will be best for society is for you to act totally in your own self-interest, why are you going around evangelizing others to act in their own self-interest?"
I mean, do you have any shred of logical comprehension whatsoever? If them putting forth a little effort to support Ron Paul's campaign:
a) Abolishes the TSA and the useless security theater
b) Ends the meaningless, racist drug war that's consumed this country
c) Stops the thousands of foreign and domestic deaths from unconstitutional wars
How is that NOT acting in your best interest? I'm fucking tired of death, I'm tired of being scared when I smoke weed, I'm tired of having my dick grabbed at the airport. And this just scratches the surface. While we're sitting here destroying your incredible lack of cohesion...
"what if what makes me happy is paying taxes that go to education for others?"
Have you ever heard of an entity called a "charity"? You're not asking for the freedom to educate kids asshole. You're demanding the right to tax OTHER PEOPLE. If you're left scratching your head at the difference between those two, I'd sincerely wish your public education had done a little better for you.
@Columbo: "If the thing that will be best for society is for you to act totally in your own self-interest, why are you going around evangelizing others to act in their own self-interest? " Because people who aren't acting in their own self-interest are passing laws that restrict your ability to act in your own self-interest. Eg. If you don't convince a fundamentalist christian that their own rational self-interest is best, they will restrict your access to birth control rather than just restricting their own. Similarly, if you don't convince a fundamnetalist liberal to act in ther own self-interest, they will restrict your access to incandescent light bulbs or fatty foods.
But that's exactly the point: if you're acting in your own self interest, you realize your contribution to these causes will in all odds (unless you're an unrealistic egomaniac) be so small and meaningless that you can make far more money and get much more power in any period of time within your lifetime by just spending your time on... you know... making money. If you're really out to make a society that you believe will be better for everyone (including you) in a way that costs something for you overall, you're making decisions not based primarily on your own self interest; throwing into question your basic premise that a person engaging in total self-interest is doing the best they can for society (and hence your justification for the kind of society you are creating).
Isn't running for president anti-libraterian. I mean they want small government and all, yet they're ok runnign for the highest office in the land. I don't know, maybe I'm ignorant and ill inofrmed, but I just don't get that crazy eyed old bastard.
No, you're not ignorant and ill-informed. You just can't spell.
Objectivists=/=Libertarians.
Which one of these women would Ron Paul let die in the street if she didn't have health insurance? All of them?