So basically you need to a hardcore libertarian to hang out around here? [admin: no]

How do you square your advocacy for world government with your belief in limiting government authority? I truly do not understand.

The world government would really do little more then ensure international criminals are extradited/caught. I don't see much else they could do that smaller gov'ts couldn't do more efficiently.


(I'm not an anarchist...)
 
The world government would really do little more then ensure international criminals are extradited/caught. I don't see much else they could do that smaller gov'ts couldn't do more efficiently.


(I'm not an anarchist...)

Problem is.... imagine that one world government being established by our current world governments.
 
Bravo! :) Thanks for sticking up for us older folks. :)

Atually, I was not really offended by the "blue-haired idiocy" remark. Sometimes I feel that way also and I am older. :D

I did not realize a Stern interview had been turned down. Too bad. He has a huge audience.
 
no it isn't.....not even close

Social Conservatism cares about minimizing scope. A small community can properly decide how to handle social issues. Economic Liberalism recognizes that if the scope of government isn't big enough, it will not succeed.

You ever notice how social conservatives talk about state rights whereas economic liberals talk about global economy? Social Conservatism fits into self determination - which is what our revolution was about. Economic Liberalism is about ending these grand experiment in freedom and ushering in an age of utopia.

Only Dennis Kucinich supporters fall for this garbage. :D
I am somewhat confused with this term economic liberalism. I think it is much closer to the free trade that Ron Paul envisions, rather than the managed trade which these treaties thrust upon us have produced. (Nafta, CAFTA, etc.)

What is you objection to free trade? If social conservatism fits into self-determination, then economic liberalism should also, should it not? Minimum government interference, private property, etc.

It does not sound as though you are describing economic liberalism.

Maybe if you explained it better to me, I would understand your meaning. :) (Not an economist here-:D)
 
Gee, I just missed that "GOP CONSERVATIVES ONLY" sign over the door. :rolleyes:

What we, you got a mouse in your pocket? :p

lewrock0305a.gif

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ ;)

the "we" in this case is Ron Paul Republicans. You need to intend to vote for him to be one.
 
I am somewhat confused with this term economic liberalism. I think it is much closer to the free trade that Ron Paul envisions, rather than the managed trade which these treaties thrust upon us have produced. (Nafta, CAFTA, etc.)

What is you objection to free trade? If social conservatism fits into self-determination, then economic liberalism should also, should it not? Minimum government interference, private property, etc.

It does not sound as though you are describing economic liberalism.

Maybe if you explained it better to me, I would understand your meaning. :) (Not an economist here-:D)

Liberalism itself is a rather broad term. Modern usage has placed an emphasis on "equality of opportunity", and not on individual liberty. Capitalism is an economic system that stresses free trade so to create a separate term - economic liberalism - indicates a diversion from free trade. In the modern sense I would take it to include such things as minimum wage, progressive taxation, and other centrally planned diversions from capitalism designed specifically to maximize equality of opportunity.
 
Sorry, I now place a higher price on my soul, than when I WAS a conservative Republican. :rolleyes:

I thought the REAL Republicans are now mostly voting for McCain. :p

yes, the real republicans always vote for party over principle.

you suggest not to vote ever

We suggest to vote for Ron Paul, or candidates like Ron Paul, regardless of party.

Considering your message is at odds with ours, I would say we are pretty awesome for allowing you to stick around....what being part of the problem and all :rolleyes:
 
yes, the real republicans always vote for party over principle.

you suggest not to vote ever

We suggest to vote for Ron Paul, or candidates like Ron Paul, regardless of party.

Considering your message is at odds with ours, I would say we are pretty awesome for allowing you to stick around....what being part of the problem and all :rolleyes:

Have a cookie and pat yourself on the back for your stellar tolerance. :rolleyes: :p

Is Voting an Act of Violence?
by Carl Watner
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/103.php
 
The world government would really do little more then ensure international criminals are extradited/caught. I don't see much else they could do that smaller gov'ts couldn't do more efficiently.


(I'm not an anarchist...)
Uh, actually, both larger and smaller governments, being basically criminals, would refuse to indict themselves. :eek:

Similar to what we have now, criminals masquerading as a governing body. :)
 
Have a cookie and pat yourself on the back for your stellar tolerance. :rolleyes: :p

Is Voting an Act of Violence?
by Carl Watner
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/103.php

you are probably the 100th cut and paster linking that same article to me this decade. Perhaps you would have more luck using your own words....wait I forgot who I was talking to, stick with what you are currently doing. :p
 
you are probably the 100th cut and paster linking that same article to me this decade. Perhaps you would have more luck using your own words....wait I forgot who I was talking to, stick with what you are currently doing. :p

I just really love it when you ............................................ folks switch gears into posting "style" critiques.

The mark of true desperation. Maybe I can find one with smaller words for you.

< LOL! >

Try this one:

How To Vote For Liberty
by Joe Sobran
http://www.voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/vote_for_liberty.php
 
Last edited:
rofl! Did you just cut and paste again? that is funny.

yep

his argument comes down to this: a successful State requires legitimacy and that one of the easiest ways to achieve legitimacy is through widespread voter participation

I'm not sure how voting for the guy that wants to demolish the system gives the state legitimacy. To carry it even further, a write in vote for Ron Paul now counts as a non-vote. As far as the state is concerned, a vote for Ron Paul is treated by the state as non participation.

I wonder what the cut and paster can find to paste on that subject? :)
 
yep

his argument comes down to this: a successful State requires legitimacy and that one of the easiest ways to achieve legitimacy is through widespread voter participation

I'm not sure how voting for the guy that wants to demolish the system gives the state legitimacy. To carry it even further, a write in vote for Ron Paul now counts as a non-vote. As far as the state is concerned, a vote for Ron Paul is treated by the state as non participation.

I wonder what the cut and paster can find to paste on that subject? :)
See, a perfect example of why originality is so vastly over rated here. :p Thanks for your "unwitting" assistance in making my case. ;)

How about?

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/
 
Last edited:
While waiting for an "original, in his own words reply :D":

Congressman Ron Paul: Archives

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Past articles by Congressman Ron Paul on LewRockwell.com[/FONT]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html


I wonder how many of them "ARealConservative" ( so called ) has read, and of those he's read how many of them he has actually understood? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top