Ron Paul & voluntarists

[Travlyr]

I hope Ron Paul wins but:

That's great to hear.

I understand that there must be a major philosophical change in people's minds or else Ron Paul will come and go, and people will not be much different. They will blame all of the inevitable economic problems on our libertarian president, and then because of their lack of philosophical change in ideas they will just elect another totalitarian after Ron Paul "fails". Ideas are what matters, politicians are irrelevant (Ron Paul has said this). Ideas are bulletproof (V!), but Ron Paul is not.

There is no doubt in my mind you are right about this. But I also think there is more going on. For example, our generation did not have the Internet. Research was more difficult, books banned and burned, and we did not know that a criminal cabal controlled an empire. We actually trusted Walter Cronkite to tell us the truth, and we believed our teachers when they taught history.

I believe he understands this, and that is why he has always said that his primary goal is education. He knows he will only be around for so long, and he has repeatedly said there must be a fundamental philosophical change in people's minds for freedom to last. I believe that it is no coincidence that his educational campaign has encouraged discussions like this very one we are having all over the internet (every forum I lurk people are aware of Rothbard, this still shocks but delights me). At the point of this philosophical revolution that he is advocating and pursuing, a completely free/voluntaryist society will be achievable.

I would encourage a thorough understanding of Mises - Human Action.

And I disagree that posting about his Voluntaryism in the dark corner of the basement (philosophy subforum) will damage his chances of winning. This is either fear mongering or paranoia imo. And if anyone comes here and says: "I can't vote for Ron Paul now because some dude on RPF pointed out that Ron Paul does not advocate the use of violence on peaceful non-criminals...", well then I doubt that guy would have even went through the trouble of putting his shoes on to walk out the door to the voting booth.

Consider your audience, the generally accepted meaning of words, and remember young people tend toward anarchy. Older people ... don't understand, have too much work to do to bother reading up on it ... and older property owners, farmers, ranchers, businessmen, homeowners, etc. will gang up on you if they even THINK you might try to eliminate the state without offering a better alternative. They know where their property deed is displayed.

fwiw though, if I thought threads like this had an actual effect on decreasing his chances, I wouldn't post in them. I wouldn't intentionally hurt his chance. But imo these discussions do far more good than bad.

I agree threads like this do no harm. However, an anarchist in senior centers could use your philosophy to turn people off Ron Paul by using fear and scaring them. They are already concerned that he wants to do away with Medicare, etc. ... please do not give them more ammo in your quest for liberty. That's the rub.

 

[Travlyr]

What I am arguing is that if you advocate every individual non-criminal's right to secession from whatever form of governance they participate in, then you advocate a voluntaryist society.

You can move freely from state to state, but I will be delightfully surprised if you achieve anything like voluntaryism as you describe in my lifetime. You guys are out of my league philosophically. I am now bowing out.

I just want you guys to realize that a President Ron Paul offers the best hope for liberty we have had in our lifetime. Help us win it, and be sensitive to others who may not get it.

 

[Conza88]

Excuse me... but WHY the hell was my post in response to newbitech deleted / completely removed / censored?

Too much truth for ya'll obviously! [Pm if you want a copy] It was in between #160-161. Am I wrong mods? Aye?

Sidenote: I just want to take this opportunity to thank newbitech, Travlyr, deborah k & the other CD's (cognitive dissonants*)... without you guys, the reality of Ron Paul being a voluntarist would hardly see the light on day in this place. Every post you guys make, you help change minds for the better. Thank you so much Keep it up

 

[Conza88]

abolishing the government is extremist. You can't have it both ways.

Just because you say so, right? Define "extremism" thanks. Not trying to have it both ways, whatever the hell that means.

Ron said he is running to win. Becoming the president puts him in charge of the government of the United States of America. This means, as president, he runs what he is presiding over. I think what you mean is the federal government is not meant to run our lives. I'm fine with that. In 2012, that Ron Paul is not trying to "win" and trying to put himself in a position where he is running the government. If you deny that, then you aren't on the same page as the people in Iowa, others in this forum, me, etc.. That is fine, you don't have to be on the same page. But I'd like to hear you tell Ron Paul to his face that abolishing the government is NOT and extreme position, that he is not really trying to win, that the MASSIVE amounts of money he is getting from people who expect him to win AND run the government, is to be used to get rid of the government completely.

It's being used to support the message of liberty. The further Ron Paul goes, the better for that message. The wider the audience, the greater the influence etc. ZOMG, IT"S SO HARB TOO UND3R5TAND,,

You express your views in an extremist way, with an extremist sentiment. You make voluntarism out to be an extremist position, and you make Ron Paul and his beliefs out to be extremist in nature. You will scare off more people than you convert by being so brazen and harsh with your interpretations of the truth. That might work for some people, but it won't work for enough to make a difference.

Yo guys, check this out more ad hominems... wooo! You remind me of Guilliani and the neo-cons. "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 - terrorism, terrorism, terrorism".

"Extremism" "Extremism" "Extremism" "Extremism"... *yawn* - You don't notice the irony that this is exactly what the charge the MSM and neo-cons throw at Ron Paul right? Abolish the IRS, End the FED, bring the troops home? "EXTREMISM! "

I am only 'brazen' and 'harsh' with people after they show a history of intellectual dishonesty, and not being open to reason.

 

[Conza88]

I am a statist just like Mises. Our philosophies are closely aligned but I will not become an anarchist on Earth. That stuff is for the afterlife, imo. It is also an extreme position which to me is not logical.

Mises wasn't a statist. He was a philosophical 'anarchist' like Albert Jay Nock. Seriously though, are you blind or intellectually dishonest? This has already been covered and mentioned I dunno how many times. Here it is again. From page 2 - here. *Going to repaste it below several posts down, interview with Hoppe*

Hoppe: Rothbard's anarchism* was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive, of course. "The anarchists," Mises had written,

contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society. . . . The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. . . . An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order.[10]
​

Indeed, Rothbard wholeheartedly agreed with Mises that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat to force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel a person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society.[11]

Inspired in particular by the nineteenth-century American anarchist political theorists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, from the outset Rothbard's anarchism took it for granted that there will always be murderers, thieves, thugs, con artists, etc., and that life in society would be impossible if they were not punished by physical force. As a reflection of this fundamental realism—anti-utopianism—of his private-property anarchism, Rothbard, unlike most contemporary political philosophers, accorded central importance to the subject of punishment. For him, private property and the right to physical defense were inseparable. No one can be said to be the owner of something if he is not permitted to defend his property by physical violence against possible invaders and invasions. "Would," Rothbard asked, "somebody be allowed to 'take the law into his own hands'? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal?" and he answered, "of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim's right of self-defense" (p. 90). Hence, the question is not whether or not evil and aggression exist, but how to deal with its existence justly and efficiently, and it is only in the answer to this question that Rothbard reaches conclusions which qualify him as an anarchist

[*anarcho-capitalism/voluntarist/private law/natural order/self government].

 

[Conza88]

"Here we go again. (HT: Kinsella)

"How far would Mises push the principle of secession, of self-determination? Down to a single village, he states; but would he press beyond even that? He calls the right of self-determination not of nations, “but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit.” But how about self-determination for the ultimate unit, for each individual? Allowing each individual to remain where he lives and yet secede from the State is tantamount to anarchism, and yet Mises comes very close to anarchism, blocked only by practical technical considerations:

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, which make it necessary that the right of self-determination be restricted to the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to count as territorial units in the administration of the country.
​

That Mises, at least in theory, believed in the right of individual secession and therefore came close to anarchism can also be seen in his description of liberalism, that “it forces no one against his will into the structure of the State.” - MNR


Liberalism pp. 109-10:

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. … However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done."
​

​

 

[Conza88]

AEN: Was Mises better than the classical liberals on the question of the state?

HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.

But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.

AEN: Yet you have been a strong critic of democracy.

HOPPE: Yes, as that term is usually understood. But under Mises's unique definition of democracy, the term means self rule or self government in its most literal sense. All organizations in society, including government, should be the result of voluntary interactions.

In a sense you can say that Mises was a near anarchist. If he stopped short of affirming the right of individual secession, it was only because of what he regarded as technical grounds. In modern democracy, we exalt the method of majority rule as the means of electing the rulers of a compulsory monopoly of taxation.

Mises frequently made an analogy between voting and the marketplace. But he was quite aware that voting in the marketplace means voting with your own property. The weight of your vote is in accord with your value productivity. In the political arena, you do not vote with your property; you vote concerning the property of everyone, including your own. People do not have votes according to their value productivity.

AEN: Yet Mises attacks anarchism in no uncertain terms.

HOPPE: His targets here are left-utopians. He attacks their theory that man is good enough not to need an organized defense against the enemies of civilization. But this is not what the private-property anarchist believes. Of course, murderers and thieves exist. There needs to be an institution that keeps these people at bay. Mises calls this institution government, while people who want no state at all point out that all essential defensive services can be better performed by firms in the market. We can call these firms government if we want to.​

Does the above sound familiar? This fits in perfectly where Ron Paul has stated (here - 4min+) that his end goal is self-GOVERNMENT. Rhetoric is important, why shut down minds with cognitive dissonance before they can be reached.. simply because you have a desire to cling to the name of a label? It makes even less sense to adopt a bad label that wasn't with your political philosophy to begin with hehe.

... Mises, better than the classical liberals , are you? Nope. Unless you responsibly and reasonably decide to alter your opinion, as a follower of the truth would dictate - then welcome to the club .

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"Here we go again. (HT: Kinsella)

"How far would Mises push the principle of secession, of self-determination? Down to a single village, he states; but would he press beyond even that? He calls the right of self-determination not of nations, “but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit.” But how about self-determination for the ultimate unit, for each individual? Allowing each individual to remain where he lives and yet secede from the State is tantamount to anarchism, and yet Mises comes very close to anarchism, blocked only by practical technical considerations:

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, which make it necessary that the right of self-determination be restricted to the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to count as territorial units in the administration of the country.
​

That Mises, at least in theory, believed in the right of individual secession and therefore came close to anarchism can also be seen in his description of liberalism, that “it forces no one against his will into the structure of the State.” - MNR


Liberalism pp. 109-10:

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. … However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done."
​

​

+rep

 

[ClayTrainor]

Excuse me... but WHY the hell was my post in response to newbitech deleted / completely removed / censored?

I noticed the thread title has changed as well.

 

[josh b]

Excuse me... but WHY the hell was my post in response to newbitech deleted / completely removed / censored?

I was wondering that as well.

Awesome posts on Mises. It's sad that you have to repeat this stuff so often.

 

[Travlyr]

I was wondering that as well.

Awesome posts on Mises. It's sad that you have to repeat this stuff so often.

It is because the real issue goes right over the heads of the philosophers in here. The classic "can't see the forest for the trees" dilemma.

It is one thing to learn and teach a philosophy. It is quite another to misunderstand that voters are not philosophers, students of philosophy, or book readers. They are TV watchers and radio listeners. It is sort of incredible to me that such brilliant people want to put their liberty off decades longer because they would rather win the argument than win their freedom. A President Ron Paul will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. Only if voters will elect him.

If voters believe that Ron Paul supporters are anarchists who want to do away with the State of Florida and the other 49 States, then peace and prosperity will elude us and tyranny will win the day. You guys are like a ball and chain even if your hearts and minds are in the right place.

Why not join us in our quest for liberty, peace, and prosperity by promoting Ron Paul as he promotes himself - "Defender of Liberty" and "Supporter of the Constitution"? Give Peace A Chance.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It is because the real issue goes right over the heads of the philosophers in here. The classic "can't see the forest for the trees" dilemma.

It is one thing to learn and teach a philosophy. It is quite another to misunderstand that voters are not philosophers, students of philosophy, or book readers. They are TV watchers and radio listeners. It is sort of incredible to me that such brilliant people want to put their liberty off decades longer because they would rather win the argument than win their freedom. A President Ron Paul will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. Only if voters will elect him.

If voters believe that Ron Paul supporters are anarchists who want to do away with the State of Florida and the other 49 States, then peace and prosperity will elude us and tyranny will win the day. You guys are like a ball and chain even if your hearts and minds are in the right place.

Why not join us in our quest for liberty, peace, and prosperity by promoting Ron Paul as he promotes himself - "Defender of Liberty" and "Supporter of the Constitution"? Give Peace A Chance.

 

[Travlyr]

That's funny HB. According to Clay & Conza my posts are driving people closer to their philosophy, so I keep posting to let people who want to learn more about learn from the experts. While I try and point out to the experts that it took me a year and a half of reading and posting my objections to begin to understand which leads me to believe that millions of TV watchers will take longer than that to accept the voluntary philosophy. The election is 16 months away. And all I get is insults from you.

 

[newbitech]

From the wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism

Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the far left or far right as well as fundamentalism or, as a more general term, fanaticism.

and from the dictionary

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extremism

a tendency or disposition to go to extremes or an instance of going to extremes, especially in political matters: leftist extremism; the extremism of the Nazis.

as in "taking the philosophy ALL the way out to it's logical (and extreme) conclusion"

a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical

Maybe Ron Paul is perceived as an extremist because some of his supporters are? Maybe Ron Paul's ideas of liberty are extreme because the country and world has lurched so far away from true liberty?

Just because you and I don't consider liberty and freedom to be extremist views, doesn't mean they aren't. It't called respecting other folks opinions and ideas even if they are radically different from our own. You do this by listening and understanding where someone is coming from. Not by belittling them, not by throwing daggers at their support, and certainly not by holding up someone else's ideas, words, and opinions in a way that makes them look like something they are not.

Now, Conza, I know you have a completely different definition of extremism right? You are going to tell me again that the definition I used is wrong because the source is wrong. So lets have it, go ahead and define extremism for me. While your at it, go ahead and go back to those other definitions I provided and gives us the correct definitions for those as well. In the mean time, I will contact the publishers of these other sources and tell them that Conza said they are full of shit. Nah, not really, but it might not be that ridiculous or extreme thing to do, pending your investigation of what words mean, of course.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And all I get is insults from you.

I didn't insult you. I expressed frustration, yes. I've given you far more time and careful attention, guidance, and hand-holding than you even asked for or any reasonable person should need, in fact. (You have given me more than enough material to insult you about, but I choose not to go down that route, because it doesn't add to the discussion)

 

[Travlyr]

I didn't insult you. I expressed frustration, yes. I've given you far more time and careful attention, guidance, and hand-holding than you even asked for or any reasonable person should need, in fact. (You have given me more than enough material to insult you about, but I choose not to go down that route, because it doesn't add to the discussion)

I don't understand why I frustrate you. I get +reps from Ron Paul supporters.
Nonetheless, I do find this thread humorous. As a Ron Paul and constitutional republic supporter, I wonder where voluntaryist's support lies. Ron Paul is a student of Rothbard & Mises. If we are all sincere in achieving liberty in our lifetimes, then surely most of us are fairly closely aligned philosophically.

 

[josh b]

It is because the real issue goes right over the heads of the philosophers in here. The classic "can't see the forest for the trees" dilemma.

It is one thing to learn and teach a philosophy. It is quite another to misunderstand that voters are not philosophers, students of philosophy, or book readers. They are TV watchers and radio listeners.

If voters believe that Ron Paul supporters are anarchists who want to do away with the State of Florida and the other 49 States, then peace and prosperity will elude us and tyranny will win the day.

Point conceded. I do believe that we need to be careful about the use of terminology around here, particularly during the election cycle (though the problem is over exaggerated). I've thought for a while that we should switch to 'Rothbardian' or 'voluntarist' for the sake of the campaign. Anarchist may be technically accurate under certain usages of the term but it's not a particularly marketable word.

Regarding the Constitution, we are not allowed to criticize it at all, even if it is to argue that even more restraints should have been put on the government? Interesting. What if one of us was to argue against the Constitution and for the Articles of Confederation? That doesn't seem too off-putting to voters. I would think that more academic discussion on here would convince more potential voters that we know what we are talking about. As long as we don't use forbidden words like 'anarchy' of course.

A President Ron Paul will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. Only if voters will elect him.

A little over optimistic there eh Travlyr? Remember that Ron Paul still has a century's worth of Statism to overturn and interests in the rest of the government to fight against if he gets elected. His victory in the election is a stepping stone on the way peace and prosperity not the end of the road.

Why not join us in our quest for liberty, peace, and prosperity by promoting Ron Paul as he promotes himself - "Defender of Liberty" and "Supporter of the Constitution"?

I promote the Constitution as a way of helping the campaign. I'm also voting for the good doctor. What more do you want? Also, even though the verdict isn't in, I think Conza made a pretty good case for Ron Paul being a voluntarist.

Give Peace A Chance.

If only that were possible with the State involved. I prefer Rothbard, Conza, and others' quest 'for liberty, peace, and prosperity' over yours.

 

[Conza88]

I noticed the thread title has changed as well.

Oh wow, didn't notice that. Shameful. "Ron Paul re-confirms his voluntarism" is what is was, for the record. What a joke, this place hasn't changed one bit.

"Excuse me... but WHY the hell was my post in response to newbitech deleted / completely removed / censored?"

I was wondering that as well.
Awesome posts on Mises. It's sad that you have to repeat this stuff so often.

Thanks! Would the mod who changed the forum title and removed my post (censorship) without any notice or justification - like to come forward and state your case. Have the integrity, or remain a coward.

I didn't create a strawman Conza. You told someone to STFU and acknowledge that RP is a voluntarist. I simply looked at what the common and dictionary definition of voluntarist are, and Ron Paul doesn't fit that mold. Ron Paul takes voluntarism to mean no coercion. Fine, if that is the only definition you want to use for that, then he is a voluntarist.

Except you did. I'm using the definition as supplied by Ron Paul himself. That which coincides with the Misesian/Rothbardian tradition. Your failure was in looking up a bogus definition, that's not my problem - that's yours.

Here is your problem. The term voluntarist is also used to describe people who want to get rid of government completely.

I'm sorry, that is a problem? Oh wait... it's not a problem! Given this whole thread.

So slapping Ron Paul with extremist type labels is probably not good coming from supposed supporters, while he is in fact campaigning to run the very government you are hoping to abolish.

Voluntarist is an extremist label? What is extreme about supporting voluntary associations between individuals? Seems like the one who opposes that - is the extremist .

He's not campaigning to run the government. Mate, if anyone is twisting reality - it is you. Seriously, check what you just said, think that over, long and hard. Ron Paul... campaigning, because he wants to run the government? Seriously?!

"Of course I'm cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood." - Lew Rockwell

All he friggin does is run against the government. "I don't want to run your lives", does that ring a bell? But honestly, it's about the message.

But lets hear from someone who would be in the know. A close family member. According to Ron Paul's niece -> "He's running just to make a point".


2min+

Now, I understand that it wouldn't be wise to go around making the point - his main goal in running isn't to 'win' office, it's about the message. But it's the truth, something to be privately acknowledged.

So don't try and twist the words of the man to fit your ideas. Take your own advice and accept him for who he says he is. A champion of the constitution, a Republican, and a conservative. These are the labels he chooses to use to introduce himself to the masses, this is who he wants to be and how he wants to be remembered.

How am I twisting the truth? You're yet to make anything even resembling a valid argument. Lmao, so sad! Keep telling yourself that mate, try maintain your flawed position (& thus sanity). What an absolute joke. You haven't refuted anything. I haven't twisted the man's words... totally absurd.

“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed
…
“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” Ron Paul told the London Independent in December.

"What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."
Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."~ YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Civil Disobedience, Self-Government & More with Motorhome Diaries

I mean, it's pretty damn clear. And yet you've seen this so many times... yet it's as if you don't know it exists. I'd say you were intellectually dishonest, but I understand it's just part of your cognitive dissonance.

I am not here to argue with you, just pointing out the pretty obvious problem you have once again with slapping labels on RP. 3 years ago, he was an anarchist. That label didn't stick, so now you want to find some other obscure "politically philosophical" idea, and try an attach that singular word as a label for what Ron Paul is.

Slapping labels on RP? Hahaha..

Ron Paul... calls himself a voluntarist, and identifies with it. Check!
Ron Paul... says he supports self-government, OVER a return to the constitution. Check!

So I call him a supporter of self-government... and a voluntarist. That = me twisting labels? lol.

What is the point you are making? That Ron Paul believes in not using coercion? Cause that is pretty much all he said in the video. Tossing around obscure words as labels that compete with the labels that Ron Paul has chosen for himself, doesn't help his message. I am sure you see that, but I think you are more interested in validating your world view and building a status for your own gain, than you are in actually advancing the cause of freedom in my back yard.

Pointing out that what you support, isn't actually true freedom. And NOR is it an end goal of Ron Paul's, and HE HAS STATED IN HIS OWN WORDS. I mean, this is just comical. The constitution is not Ron Paul's end goal, that isn't 'freedom'. He's not a statist, or a minarchist is my point.

It's as basic as that. You do not support Ron Paul's end goal it seems. That's not my problem to contend with, that's yours - if you want to call yourself a true Ron Paul supporter.

When you interrupt intelligent conversation with belligerent rantings, you absolutely are forcing your will upon others. You use force anytime you punch the keys on your keyboard. You use force when you open your mouth to speak. Force is not inherently a good or bad thing. You force you will upon people by insulting them, egging them on, and pushing their buttons. Maybe you ought to go look up "will". Then when you are done, go back and look up voluntarism once again. Send me a link I can share with others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntarism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellect

What intelligent conversation? . But really - you failed to define "force" thanks. Which definition are you using [for your political philosophy & here] - spell it out bro. Again, it's not going to be a libertarian definition.

Dictionary definition of voluntarism? Red herring fallacy... and see top of the post point.

 

[Conza88]

It is sort of incredible to me that such brilliant people want to put their liberty off decades longer because they would rather win the argument than win their freedom. A President Ron Paul will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. Only if voters will elect him.

If voters believe that Ron Paul supporters are anarchists who want to do away with the State of Florida and the other 49 States, then peace and prosperity will elude us and tyranny will win the day. You guys are like a ball and chain even if your hearts and minds are in the right place.

Epic fail. Where have I suggested the strategy that should be taken, is for Ron Paul to promote publicly and campaign as an anarcho-capitalist? Are you demented? Are you? Read the friggin OP of the thread.

You guys aren't concerned with the truth at all. Your whole "crusade" against "us" is based on an abysmally flawed assumption... and that is your downfall. Terribly humorous, terribly sad - that you're in fact a Ron Paul "supporter" and fail to see that.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Epic fail. Where have I suggested the strategy that should be taken, is for Ron Paul to promote publicly and campaign as an anarcho-capitalist? Are you demented? Are you? Read the friggin OP of the thread.

You guys aren't concerned with the truth at all.Your whole "crusade" against "us" is based on an abysmally flawed assumption... and that is your downfall. Terribly humorous, terribly sad - that you're in fact a Ron Paul "supporter" and fail to see that.

IOU a +rep when I get some more ammo.