My name is Brick-in-the-Wall and I was a Neo-Con

[affa]

Atheism is where I lose you. You turn into a moral relativist. Doing the run for life and volunteering are great imo, but there's no real objective basis for your morality. Besides how can you really define "being a good person" person without God. All relative, no agreement there. I don’t think I could live in a society of people like that where "goodness" is defined by the person.

Atheists disagree with each other just as much as people who believe in some god disagree with each other. Plenty of religious people have incredibly divergent views on what is moral and what is not (see any hot topic issue, like state executions or war).

Heck, I'm vegan, and literally wouldn't hurt a fly. Do I judge the elderly Christian lady across the street as she sprays pesticides everywhere? No. I notice, but I don't judge. So please don't try to argue your moral compass is somehow superior to mine simply because you read it out of a book.

PS - You already live in a society of people where 'goodness' is defined by the person. Each and every one of us does that, regardless of what religion we do or do not claim.

The democratic party is the antithesis of my beliefs and if someone who supported those policies now supports the same guy I support, logically I feel something wrong is going on.

That's not logic, that's irrationality. The left/right paradigm is an illusion fostered upon us by the establishment. You should be willing to listen to the ideas of a man (say, Ron Paul) and judge them on their own merit, not based on your pre-established judgement of others that agree with him. It's irrational to dismiss ideas out of hand simply because someone you disagree with on some issues likes an idea.

Finally with drugs: most of those who have been on highly addictive drugs will tell you the craving never truly goes away. By allowing things like heroin and cocaine to be freely sold, many will unwillingly be tricked into addictions that they will have no control of (for example 98% of heroin users are addicted after the first use).

Tricked? Nonsense. First off, are people tricked into trying drugs now? Let's see - they're taboo, so have that going for them. Often, their friends are telling them it's worth trying. Since it's black market, there is no label, and no warning label. If legalized, the drug would be labeled and have full warnings. Which is trickery? The truth? Or keeping it black market?

The truth will set you free. I am not 'tricked' into trying things. I decide to try them, or don't decide to.

And marijuana is not a completely harmless drug as many make it up to be. It’s mentally addictive, has lingering effects and greatly impairs driving ability (think school bus drivers), is a huge gateway drug, raises the risk of heart attack greatly while high, has much more carcinogens than a cigarette when consumed in its most common method of consumption, etc etc

First off, I disagree with some of your assertions, but let's start with the driving one. If true, then... well, heck, don't we already have reckless driving laws on the books? Yep. And DWI laws. And driving while drinking is far more dangerous than driving while high.

But more importantly, who cares if it's harmless or not? Liquor is harmful, but we all know how well Prohibition worked out. The gov't can not protect someone from themselves. Otherwise it will start banning drugs, liquor, guns, driving, and anything else that can harm themselves or others.

The only choice is liberty.

Bush and Rush both used drugs but both greatly regret that decision and advise others against doing them as opposed to libertarians who think anyone and everyone can buy/ sell any drug/substance.

Um. Your logic is failing. A libertarian that supports the right of others to do what they want can still advise against it. I don't advocate drug use. I don't do drugs. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't tell you not to.

And you know what? That doesn't just apply to 'black market' drugs. I'm also against the overwhelming number of 'legal' drugs that people take (and often force their children to take) for every ailment.

As for the govt having a pension on medical marijuana, that’s ridiculous imo. Besides, synthetic marinol exists and defeats the argument that cancer patients need smokeable pot.

I have no idea what you mean by 'pension'. But think about the absurdity of your final sentence: because we have a synthetic chemical that profits the drug companies, we don't need the natural plant that anyone can grow. I hope that sounds as absurd to you as it does to me.

 

[danbeaulieu]

bumpity

 

[danbeaulieu]

@ConsideringRonPaul

Don't judge a person by his supporters or make your decisions based on how everyone else will view you. Thats just dishonest to yourself, make your decisions based on morals and logic. That's how we arrive at Ron Paul, through principals, logic, truth and morality. What this thread PROVES is how diverse the support is for Ron Paul, there are people of all creeds, races and backgrounds supporting Ron Paul.

Have an open mind. When you arbitrarily disagree with with something you are part of the problem.

As for:
9/11 truth, the drug war, israel, gay marrage... his message is right. Just study with an open mind youll find the answers.

 

[tremendoustie]

I know the guns argument was to prove a point about drugs but it is kind of in a different class than drugs. I also want to avoid a debate but I will respond anyway. First of all, its people who kill people, not guns. In and of themselves guns do nothing. Knives could be used to kill as well. Gun bans in DC and Chicago are unconstitutional, end of story. And no government doesn't have the right to infringe on anyone's private property (including going into a house) without a proper search warrant.

We certainly agree there

Drugs do have lingering effects, and if someone smokes weed on saturday and kills someone in a car accident during the week, that is threatening the lives of all on the road.

Cannabis certainly does not have anything near that sort of "lingering effect". You've been fearmongered, my friend.

It does affect others, and killing someone most certainly limits liberty.

Of course it does, which is why we have laws against murder (and vehicular homicide/manslaughter). But, we don't outlaw alcohol, which has far, far more serious effects on a person's driving ability than cannabis does. When we did try to outlaw alcohol, in the 20s, we saw just what we have now with drugs: huge well financed mafias/gangs, increased violence, dangerous manufacturing practices and produces (e.g. moonshine), etc.

It's not only impractical, but it's wrong. What a person chooses to do with their own body in their own home is none of my business, legally -- and a government which tries to make it its business is setting itself against liberty, and taking on a role in society for which it was never intended.

The religion argument gets off track for me. The Westboro "Baptists" have their right to speech and religion, but that is neither dangerous nor threatening, unless they somehow threatened the soldier's families (which I don; think they did). The "Baptists" can't go onto the private property of the church unless invited. And no, "hate speech" and any right to speech or assembly should never be prohibited. I mean I agree with you on all these points, I only vaguely see what you're getting at.

I agree also.

I am against the federal government dictating individuals lives, per the 10th amendment and with the exception of the enumerated powers, but I believe the state and local governments have the ability to.

Constitutionally, yes. And that's all Ron's saying. If local jurisdictions wanted to enforce prohibitions, it's up to them.

Personally speaking, I'd oppose such prohibitions by my local government as well.

For example, a local government can, imo, pass a law prohibiting nudity on the front lawn (or in public like in San Francisco). That is harmful to the psychological development of young children in the neighborhood, would be harmful to raising a family, and is a general disturbance.

Yes, there's a legitimate argument to be made that public nudity counts as pollution. I really wouldn't have a problem with such a law.

I believe in absolute truth and morality and therefore would oppose relativistic morals and letting people do whatever they want with themselves.

I do too. And that's precisely why I think violence is only justified in certain specific circumstances -- namely, to stop someone who has, or is currently attempting to, harm another person or their property.

Laws are backed by violence. We must recognize this.

Do I think gluttony is wrong? Absolutely. Would it be wrong for me to go down to the local McDonalds and start threatening obese people with a gun, to harm them or lock them up if they don't put down what they're eating? Absolutely yes. What if I were to react in a violent way to gossip, or vanity, or pride, or unrighteous anger, or "white" lies?

There are many actions which are immoral, but to which a violent response would also be immoral. And, if it'd be wrong for me to do something like that as an individual, it's wrong for me to hire the government to do it.

I certainly believe in freedom and liberty and agree with much of the rest of what you said. However, the uneducated and the brainwashed will not always act in their best interest because they don't know any better. If the government believes in absolute truth as opposed to moral relativism like some libertarians, it can have policies in place that take people down the right path (away from drugs, into lasting marriages, etc.).

Once again, it's not that libertarians believe in moral relativism. In fact, for me at least, it's the exact opposite. I believe in the absolute moral principle that to initiate aggressive violence against someone who's not harming others, is morally wrong. Most people would agree with me on a personal level, but the difference is that I'd apply this same principle to the federal government.

I will do everything I can, short of violence, to try to help a friend stay off drugs - I oppose recreational drug use absolutely - but I don't think a violent response is a moral (or effective, for that matter) solution.

I'm also a Christian, by the way.

The difference between a complete libertarian and myself is that I believe some things are right and some are wrong and the government should advocate truth. Indivuals will still do drugs but at least the government's disapproval will act as a hindrance for example.

I likewise believe some things are right, and others are wrong -- I just believe the government should not be exempted from those rules.

Disapproval is great -- I disapprove of drug use also -- but as I say, violence is not appropriate.

 

[affa]

We certainly agree there
Cannabis certainly does not have anything near that sort of "lingering effect". You've been fearmongered, my friend.

Seconded! Seriously, I missed that gem. In my opinion, the effects of alcohol linger far longer than those of marijuana. And whereas liquor causes double/triple vision, massive lapses in value judgements, and reduces dexterity... marijuana is generally considered to increase focus. Granted, it can dull reaction time in some people, but so does alcohol. A very drunk guy is likely to get in a car or start a fight... someone high is either going to sit on a couch or get in a deep discussion, or maybe a snack. And the next day? The drunkard has a splitting headache and feels like crap. The guy who got stoned? Clear headed.

In my opinion, the reason marijuana is abhorred by the establishment is that, as a drug, it can open ones mind. It's not because it's dangerous to you or me, it's because it's dangerous to the establishment.

The idea that smoking weed on a weekend would cause an accident during the week is straight up ludicrous. It's as crazy as saying having sex on saturday might cause you to drink a glass of water on friday.

 

[BuddyRey]

This coming May, I'll celebrate my 5th anniversary as an official supporter of Ron Paul, my 4th year of being a principled libertarian, and my 3rd year of being a Voluntaryist. But before all of this, I was basically a well-meaning but poorly-informed leftist. I'd never actually read any economics books (imagine that!) and I didn't even have any specific methodology in my mind, other than a knee-jerk hatred of rich people, and a desire to redistribute their wealth, by force if necessary. I know....I'm disgusted looking back on all of this myself.

Still, I considered myself a nice guy who wanted to help people and never harm them. And as such, I saw the more *obvious* forms of immoral aggression and coercion for what they were. I was deeply and vehemently opposed to non-defensive wars, saw that America was becoming an intolerable police state under the Bush admin, and thought it a travesty that people were going to jail for soft drugs.

I do want to emphasize one thing about the "old me" that is important to remember for the context of my libertarian conversion, and that is that, while I had an abiding zeal for wealth redistribution and income equality, the war and civil liberties issues were of *paramount* importance in my mind. To my way of thinking, wars and repressive social policies were the very pillars propping up the Mixed Market/Corporatist economy that I falsely believed was a "laissez-faire free market." I've since noticed that a lot of the leftists I thought were my allies back then didn't place nearly as much importance on civil liberties and militarism as they pretended to, and really only took umbrage to these abuses when they were perpetrated by Republican legislators and a Republican president. These are invariably the leftists that remained and continue to remain mired in statist thinking, even in the face of the paradigm-shifting Ron Paul movement. But I digress...

My disgust with Bush compelled me to vote for Democrats, even though I was way more radical than they were and wasn't satisfied with their middle-of-the-road, soporific reluctance to strike the system at the root. In November of 2006, I cheered as Nancy Pelosi stood at the crest of the Blue Wave that ousted the Republican Majority that year, and thought to myself "finally...some accountability! Bush is really in trouble now!"

It didn't take me long to see that the only change we were going to get would be for the worse. Pelosi famously said that impeachment of Bush was "off the table", and the one puny effort to defund the war was a bill with no deadlines and no legislative teeth. This is where the entire edifice of my political thinking started to crumble away, and I fell under a dark, hopeless period where the news would only depress and enrage me.

I now realized that there was no substantive difference between the two major parties, and this realization compelled me to abandon my beloved daily ritual of watching CNN. Instead, I started looking at the blogosphere and alternative news outlets, like Infowars. One day, in early 2007, I saw a banner ad on the Infowars site advertizing the candidacy of someone named Ron Paul, who was deemed by the ad to be "Founding Father Material." I'd never heard of the guy, so I figured he was a minor candidate from a third party. I had no idea that I was looking at somebody who would permanently alter the course of my life, and fundamentally transform the political discourse of the United States, and the world at large.

That May, the groundwork was laid. I sat spellbound, watching the Republican debates as this mild-mannered, grandfatherly figure politely but insistently refused to apologize for voting against the Iraq War. I thought he was dead-wrong on economic issues, but the fact that he endorsed limited-government across the board won my respect and admiration right off the bat. "He may not be a Progressive, but at least he's a real conservative and not a neocon", I said. "This guy is interesting....I'm gonna keep my eye on him."

"Keeping my eye on him" of course entailed registering at Ron Paul Forums. Here is where I really feasted my mind on the cornucopia of ideas, principles, and philosophies on the anti-state side of the idea marketplace. To my eternal embarrassment, I said some pretty idiotic and deluded things in my first few months here. I especially remember arguing with SeanEdwards and CaptainShays about price controls, and "informing" them that "taxes are just the price we pay to live in a free society." I even told Noxagol that Austrian economics was a boring subject that I had no intention of researching. I mention these three by name only to single out three of the first people who genuinely tried to knock some sense into me. I'd like to publicly apologize to them now, late as this apology was in coming.

Curiosity did finally get the best of me, and that summer, I read my first ever economics book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. Contrary to my expectation that this would be a real chore to read, the book was concise, logically sound, and very engaging. I still wasn't sold, but I was now receptive....the walls were down, and this was when the changes really started.

I gradually waded further out into the depths of libertarian philosophy, flirting with low or single-tax movements like Georgism. Sometime in 2008 (I can't point to a specific date), when I first heard the idea of the Non-Aggression Principle, I saw finally that collectivism, inasmuch as it proposes a coercive means for organizing society, can be nothing but an affront to the values of non-violence I held so dear. I realized how hollow my "tolerant" political outlook had been, because though I didn't want to bomb anybody or lock anybody up for smoking a plant, I still advocated policies that would initiate force on people for no more devious an act than wanting to keep their own money. That was when the aphorism that "taxation is theft" finally made sense to me.

I was reading voraciously by this time. First came the works of the Classical Liberals (Hayek, Paine, Locke, Jefferson, etc.) and not long after that, the pure Anti-Statists (Thoreau, Rothbard, Spooner, etc.) I could talk about the micro-details of this period, but to be brief, my eventual abandonment of statism was pretty much complete by 2009. The rest, as they say, is history, and I owe it all to Ron Paul. Nobody before him had ever made me see freedom as an inextricable whole, with the integrity of "civil liberty" (which is really just self-ownership) wholly dependent on the integrity of economic freedom (property ownership), and vice-versa. I see the world through almost completely different eyes now, and Ron Paul opened that door. He's the greatest hero American politics has known in more than a century.

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

There's a lot to respond to here. Don't have the time now but I will

 

[bunklocoempire]

WAS: "Christian", fearful, apathetic, 'lesser of two evils' voting, blind follower of foreign policy/national security.

IS: Christian (no" "s), Liberty supporter unto death -and surrounded by excellent company I might add.

EDIT: Just saw this-

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

ConsideringRonPaul, before I signed on board this Liberty thing I was perfectly content with, or apathetic to, the method of having groups of people using government (force) to try to 'change people's behavior'. I discovered that our form of federal government is not allowed to even try to do that. I also discovered that true behavioral change is accomplished when people's hearts are changed, and people's hearts don't get changed by pointing a gun at them. There are hundreds/thousands of threads on these forums which discuss this, I'd encourage you to have a look.

As a Christian I stand by what I wrote:

-and surrounded by excellent company I might add.

 

[KMA-NWO]

Congratulations on curing your 'tardism BitW. I was 'tarded once as well. Amazingly, being lied to about the pot issue was the cliff and Loose Change was the bottom. The landing sure was one hell of a wake-up call! Surprisingly, we both share the same high-school graduation year.

Funny how our wake-up patterns are similar, I guess the social engineers missed a leak...

 

[jason43]

I was a Neo-Con until I argued with a libertarian on a message board. I had no response for his talking points, I was never socially conservative anyway. Being a Vet (I got out in 2001), the foreign policy was the hardest thing for me to convert to. Talking to friends who were in Iraq and Afghanistan who said the whole thing was bullshit and losing my best friend from High School in Iraq in March of 2007 were the tipping point. When he died my first response was anger, then I realized that the guy that killed him was probably just a 27 year old guy just like him. At first I wanted revenge for my loss, but then I came to the realization that the whole war was pointless and causing a lot of innocent people of ours AND theirs to die for no reason. I went all in for Dr. Paul in the 2007 campaign and was crushed when we lost. I turned off the news for 3 years, literally.

Then I found Freedomain Radio and Molyneux changed my life. I consider myself to be a market anarchist. I support Paul because he brought me philosophically to where I am and he comes the closest to what I believe. Anything he does will be a step in the right direction. As far as I'm concerned he is the last chance the economy has. I hope America is ready to vote for him this time... but back to the original point, yes, I was once a flag waving neo-con. There is hope that some of them can convert.

 

[KMA-NWO]

I'm sorry to hear about your loss Jason. Welcome! We need everyone we can get!

 

[jason43]

T my 4th year of being a principled libertarian, and my 3rd year of being a Voluntaryist. But before all of this, I was basically a well-meaning but poorly-informed leftist. I'd never actually read any economics books (imagine that!) and I didn't even have any specific methodology in my mind, other than a knee-jerk hatred of rich people, and a desire to redistribute their wealth, by force if necessary.

Sounds a lot like me, except you started at the left. I didnt know the difference between crony capitalism and a true free market. I wasnt interested in economics at all until way after I got into Paul. I wish I would have been a lot more interested, I could have made a fortune buying gold. ha! All I knew was that I hated socialists and hippies and that anything they said, I was against. They hated America... Its amazing how people, even us personally, can take someone elses poorly educated narrative about politics and just run with it. Thats how they keep the cattle in the pasture without putting up a fence, just keep us fighting each other. Looking back is a big facepalm for my stupidity.

 

[rp713]

The thing is I've always had doubt even at an early age. I was "saved" and tried to live my life in a Christian manner. I never heard from or felt moved by a god. I researched symbolism and all sorts of things trying to see if there was some hidden messages or clues I was being left. I went to church, rededicated my life, studied the Bible, and tried my hardest to fix what I thought was wrong with me. Still, there was nothing. I felt nothing, wasn't moved, or felt like there was any presence in my life trying to help or guide me.

I guess the thing that kept me on for as long as it did was my parents, friends, family, and just being raised where everybody went to church. If everybody did it, it had to be true. I figured something was wrong with me because I can't be the only one doing all of this and getting nothing in return. Everybody I know couldn't be wrong could they?

I felt like my spiritual life was standing by a wall trying to get a response from somebody on the other side. It was like I was literally talking and praying to a wall. I finally let go because I spent years trying to find god and got nothing. There is no god in my mind and if he or she wants to change it they know where to find me.

this is exactly how i felt. my parents were catholic all of their lives, then found another religion and seemed really happy by it. then when they made the decision to be baptized along with my little sister. i said i didnt want to and i wasnt ready. but i didnt want to because i didnt feel it like they seemed to. then when they kept going on and on about it i caved and said yes because i didnt wanna be left out. i was only 9. but like you said. i never felt any presence or any feeling of being over-joyed. it just never felt real, and prayer was like no one was listening, it was just in my head. im glad i looked into alot deeper and came to my senses.

question, how did your family take it when you told them or they found out you didnt believe in it anymore?

 

[Uriah]

I voted progressive, closest to my anarchist views at the time.

Freedom was at the time, and still is the most important thing to me, personally, politically, and philosophically. I remember researching the candidates back in 2006/2007. I wanted the wars to end and civil liberties to return. I was looking at some candidate comparison site and looked over the democrats because they fit my view most closely at the time. I then looked into 3rd party candidates. After this, I liked Kucinich and Gravel the most. I thought to myself, 'to be fair and honestly research all the candidates, I should at least glance at the Republicans". I was surprised to see that a Republican candidate was actually against the wars and against the patriot act. My mind was blown.

Some time before this, I had watched the movie Zeitgeist. This film introduced me to the Federal Reserve system. The moment I had finished watching that film I knew, if true, that the FED was THE central issue. I researched some more, watched more films like Money Masters and others and wanted to do something about the FED but didn't know where to start. I let this information sit, uncomfortably.

Fast forward to the presidential candidate research. Now that I had found someone(Dr. Paul) that wanted peace and freedom, seemingly as much as I wanted peace and freedom, did he understand or even know about the FED? The answer, yes. I was sold.

It took hours and hours of youtubes, presidential debates, reading these forums, books and more to convince myself Dr. Paul was the real deal. I always try to be absolutely sure of something if I feel so... well, sure about it. Five years later, I am still sure Ron Paul is the real deal. How can anybody be against a person that offers peace, freedom, & prosperity, not only in word but in deed? And has a 30+ year record supporting it?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I really appreciate stories like the OP that help me understand and thus build bridges to other voting blocks. I am guessing it was merely by some quirk of fate or some design of destiny that put me very young in the class of a civics professor who thought like we do now. Even before that at a spry 10 years old I was questioning Reagan's "war on drugs" being incompatible with American freedom. At 10 I had no concept of "drugs" except my asthma inhaler lol, but it seemed to me if we owned our own bodies then men with guns couldn't tell us what to put into it.

So I was always a liberty radical, and somewhere around 12-13-14 I encountered this Civics professor and became an original intent strict construction Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul was a shock to me because he's the first person I'd ever heard in politics who saw things the same way I did. I had pretty much given entirely up on politics and voted "gun rights" single issue at the ballot box. I had resigned myself to the conclusion that "America as myth" is over and felt the best hedge against totalitarianism was gun rights so I voted straight gun rights. I was in awe of Ron Paul because I never realized that someone who believed in the same "America as myth" as I did could get and stay elected....anything.

Having never given politics more than a passing thought, (generally in dispair) I encountered Ron Paul and figured with all I believed and how much I love America and hate our politics, if I don't go all-in with this Ron Paul guy then I'm a hypocrite. So I put my money where my mouth was, gave up pretty much my entire life, and went to canvass 3 states for the good Dr in 2008.

And ended up elected to the NC State House in 2010. Hating politics more than ever.

Conversion stories like the OP and others that talk about progressives waking up etc, are incredibly helpful to me for my own and Ron Paul's campaign. I'm empathetic, so I can see and sympathize with the neocon logic even as I reject it. But I've never been a neocon, so it's harder for me to reach them.

Thanks for the post, it's more helpful to us as we campaign for Ron Paul than you probably realize.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

I am a Pauler because I am a strict Constitutionalist, and I know that if we do not restore the Constitutional order, America will continue to fling herself apart oscillating violently left right left right until we are finished, a smoking pile of rubble as a nation. I am worried that there is not much time left, and that we don't really have time for "slow" anymore.

As to the fringes of every movement, you will find that any radical change brings out lots of very vocal, radical people. It's just the math of it, given the nature of free expression in America. That's just the bitter pill we have to swallow in order to affect radical change in America, such as electing Ron Paul and restoring the Constitutional order.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I feel like a conservative when I am among libertarians and like a libertarian when I am among conservatives.

Explain that!

 

[JasonC]

Like RP says, once you know the truth you have an obligation to do something about it.......

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Like RP says, once you know the truth you have an obligation to do something about it.......

Hey, that's made up of that "morality" stuff that the pseudochristians claim they have and we don't... hmm...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I feel like a conservative when I am among libertarians and like a libertarian when I am among conservatives.

Explain that!

Yes. 42.

Or rather 9/17/1787

depending on your calculus.