Ron Paul & voluntarists

[Deborah K]

Dr. Paul has left us with a pile of clues as to where his true moral compass points, but he has not really come out plainly and said, "I am a minarchist!", or "I am an anarchist!". It's true that he has said that he is a Constitutionalist - a Champion of the Constitution, even. But so am I, as I've stated in another thread - I would prefer strict adherence by the government to it over the present paradigm, and afterall it is the operating governing document of the federal government and as such ought to be held to it... but I'd also prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (and I believe Ron has said something similar, but I can't cite it at the moment), and the relative freedom of the colonies to the Articles, and ultimately real, true individual liberty. Just as well as calling himself a Constitutionalist, he's also said that the ultimate goal is self-government, the implication of course being that capital-G Government isn't necessary... and he's certainly made himself quite friendly with more than a few well-established anarchists.

Without offense, I find the unequivocal declarations that Ron IS or ISN'T something to be a bit absurd... he's never really come right out and said specifically that anarchism is preferable, or that government is. It's my personal opinion, from some of the things he's said and some of the folks he's associated himself with, that he is at least sympathetic to the philosophy of anarchism. In the end, frankly, it doesn't matter to me. It wouldn't matter to me if I were the only person on the planet who acknowledged the objective, moral truth of individual sovereignty.

A reasonable perspective. Perhaps the bolded part could be directed at the OP.

 

[Deborah K]

Okay...

"Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, and the Founders knew clearly that they wanted a republic, not a democracy, where the majority could not dictate the definition of rights of the minority. They did a reasonably good job in writing the Constitution but yielded to the principle of democracy in compromising on the slavery issue. The majority voted for supporting second-class citizenship for blacks, a compromise that we paid heavily for, not only in the 1860's but more than a hundred years later as well. It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution."

Liberty Defined, pages 66-67.

We can go back and forth citing quotes... that's kind of the point I was making.

It seems you're a bit intractible on this, and that's fine. It's a bit odd to me, but to each his own.

Edit: In reply to Travlyr

The same could be said about the OP and many of his advocates. Can we end this now?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The same could be said about the OP and many of his advocates. Can we end this now?

'Twould be fine with me.

 

[Travlyr]

Okay...

"Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, and the Founders knew clearly that they wanted a republic, not a democracy, where the majority could not dictate the definition of rights of the minority. They did a reasonably good job in writing the Constitution but yielded to the principle of democracy in compromising on the slavery issue. The majority voted for supporting second-class citizenship for blacks, a compromise that we paid heavily for, not only in the 1860's but more than a hundred years later as well. It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution."

Liberty Defined, pages 66-67.

We can go back and forth citing quotes... that's kind of the point I was making.

It seems you're a bit intractible on this, and that's fine. It's a bit odd to me, but to each his own.

Edit: In reply to Travlyr

Coulda - Woulda - Shoulda... Now we are dealing with reality of our day. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Ron Paul has proven that he will use the rule of law to rule.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Coulda - Woulda - Shoulda... Now we are dealing with reality of our day. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Ron Paul has proven that he will use the rule of law to rule.

 

[Wesker1982]

I had never seen his speech that starts at about 2:50

It makes sense and confirms what the Voluntaryists have been saying.

Also something that is absolutely indisputable is his support of the individuals right to opt out (like in the interview he mentions the Amish should just be left alone). And he talks about how in a libertarian society if a group of socialists want to start a community or whatever, he would have no problem with it so long as they didn't live off of anyone who didn't agree. This is Voluntaryism.

Right to opt out =

If each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.

Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled

 

[Travlyr]

More propaganda,

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please.

 

[Travlyr]

Getting rid of the State will start a civil war. If you do not understand that, then you need to understand it. If a civil war is not your goal, then you need to study harder.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Getting rid of the State will start a civil war. If you do not understand that, then you need to understand it. If a civil war is not your goal, then you need to study harder.

Assertions are not arguments.

 

[ClayTrainor]

More propaganda,

Assertions are not arguments.

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please.

What, exactly does this have to do with Weskers post? (which is what I'm assuming you're responding to)

 

[Travlyr]

Assertions are not arguments.

Answer the question.

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections

And be honest to your recruits. Insincerity is not a trait of Ron Paul

 

[Travlyr]

What, exactly does this have to do with Weskers post? (which is what I'm assuming you're responding to)

Word for word out of the recruitment video he posted.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Answer the question.

Please, explain to me the relevance of the question, according to the subject matter being discussed here.

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections

And be honest to your recruits. Insincerity is not a trait of Ron Paul

I truly don't give a shit what the US constitution says, how's that for honesty?

 

[Travlyr]

Please, explain to me the relevance of the question, according to the subject matter being discussed here.

I truly don't give a shit what the US constitution says, how's that for honesty?

But you should. It was written for the people.

And I don't want to take-up arms against my brothers. All I'm asking for is for honest sincere adult debate.
The State is not the problem of our day.

 

[Travlyr]

You guys misrepresent the State. And a lot of people believe what you say. If you are not going to be honest, it is a cult.

 

[Travlyr]

I am seriously beginning to believe that Clay Trainor and Wesker are here to disrupt liberty rather than promote it.
They never answer the tough questions.

Property is currently vested in the State. Getting rid of the State without first considering what to do with the property deeds that are publicly recorded in county clerks offices all across the country is not a smart move.

 

[ClayTrainor]

But you should. It was written for the people.

No, it was written to establish a central organization with the power to lay and collect taxes, with limitations.... which is a laughably utopian idea on it's face.

And I don't want to take-up arms against my brothers.

Do you wish to impose the state on your brothers who don't want one and have committed no aggressive crime?

The State is not the problem of our day.

Some people having the right to initiate coercive force and fraud against other people is, and has always been the central problem for humanity.

 

[klamath]

I had never seen his speech that starts at about 2:50

It makes sense and confirms what the Voluntaryists have been saying.

Also something that is absolutely indisputable is his support of the individuals right to opt out (like in the interview he mentions the Amish should just be left alone). And he talks about how in a libertarian society if a group of socialists want to start a community or whatever, he would have no problem with it so long as they didn't live off of anyone who didn't agree. This is Voluntaryism.

Right to opt out =

Ah. but there is the question. What if they were living off of the minority in a community and suspending the minorities god given rights, what would RP's answer be?

 

[Travlyr]

Answer the question.

 

[ClayTrainor]

You guys misrepresent the State. And a lot of people believe what you say. If you are not going to be honest, it is a cult.

I think it's fair to say that you've likely contributed far more to converting people to voluntaryism than I have.