Stefan Molyneux To Ron Paul Supporters: I'm Sorry [vid]

[heavenlyboy34]

A document is your slaver?

Indeed. The same can be said of a number of legal documents. That's one reason lawyers are almost universally despised.

I don't find the same sort of relationship occurs with me. I realize it is a set of governmental ethics. If commonly accepted as understood there would be no problems.

You're entitled to your subjective opinion. If you could keep it and your regime to yourself, we could coexist perfectly harmoniously.

The problems are related to the subversion and misinterpretation of those words and acceptance by those who didn't do their homework and the machinations encroached on the original compact to the point where you can deem it a slaver when it is the subversion and misinterpretation of that compact by those with nefarious trajectories. Those men and women are your slavers. Not the Constitution.

Ah, but you're just proving Spooner's point again.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: sqtdq, bgcolor: #EDF1F7, colspan: 2"] [h=1]“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”[/h]
[h=1]“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”[/h][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Revolution9]

Again, you admit democracy could not be prevented by the "chains" of Constitutionalism, but insist that Constitutionalism works. This is a type of Cognitive Dissonance.


I agree. I hope you'll come back from that fabled land to have rational discourse with us soon.

See..there ya go again. No.. Constitutionalism would bind against democracy. It even is warned against as recently as the 1929 US Army field manuals. The Constitution is a Republic's document. The problem with you clowns argument is that you are arguing about the pile of pig crap in the barnyard but refuse to see that it was not the farmer who placed it there. When ya all can stop the conveniently ignoring wide swaths of known criminal conspiracy and succession to subvert these american states then you can talk at me about rational discourse. For now yer all just a blowing wind outta the seat of your pants.

Rev9

 

[Travlyr]

BS. There's nothing cliche about it. Its so rational that Constitutionalists have borrowed it and bastardized it into "the Liberty Movement".

Let me try again. This is Ron Paul Forums. Ron Paul says,

Forward By Ron Paul

"The Constitution is a revolutionary document. It is also a perfect illustration of how freedom brings people together.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 had to draft a charter to limit government and secure liberty for Americans of all kinds -- farmers and industrialists, Christians and deists, from big states and small states. Nothing else but freedom could overcome the divisions and work for everybody.

The Constitution was not perfect. It allowed for slavery. At first, it lacked a Bill of Rights. The Framers argued that the divided and limited powers enumerated in the Constitution were enough to protect our rights. The Anti-Federalists -- opponents of constitutional ratification like Patrick Henry and George Mason -- argued that there ought to be a Bill of Rights and warned that the president and the federal courts would be too powerful.

The Framers were very careful not to give the president or the courts the most dangerous powers that government has, however. They only entrusted the power to declare war and raise taxes to Congress, the branch of government most directly answerable to the people. And after the Constitution was ratified, a Bill of Rights was added that forbids any branch of the federal government to interfere with liberties like our right to free speech, to the free exercise of religion, and to keep and bear arms. These guarantees of freedom brought the Framers and the Anti-Federalists together in support of the Constitution once it was adopted.

Strictly limiting government was a revolutionary idea. What was even more revolutionary was that the Constitution left the most important things in life, like religion and education, free from government control. The Framers knew that no government, no matter how carefully designed, could make people virtuous. That job belongs to families, churches, and communities, not politicians and government schools.

Right from the start, though, politicians were unhappy about the limits the Constitution placed on them. Even Thomas Jefferson, as president, overstepped his constitutional authority by buying the Louisiana territories. Alexander Hamilton succeeded in creating a nation bank, without constitutional authority, to finance government and centralize economic power.

Politicians damaged the Constitution not only by violating its letter but also by ignoring the wisdom that created the Constitution in the first place, creating taxes and tariffs that hurt some parts of the country more than others. Just as freedom brings people together, the opposite of freedom -- tariffs, wars, slavery -- tears a country apart.

Since the Civil War, Washington has done everything that the Framers tried to prevent, from letting the president make wars to interfering in religion and federalizing education. But the people still want freedom. They want a revolution to return to the Constitution.

Young Americans for Liberty (www.yaliberty.org) is leading the way by educating young people about their rights and demanding that politicians obey the Constitution. That is what YAL means by "winning on principle." Our principles are expressed in the Constitution, so read it carefully and commit its lessons to heart."

Ron Paul
Congressman Ron Paul

I am not sure where your problems lie. But, speaking for myself, I put much more faith in what Ron Paul says than what you say. History is on my side.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Bind? Re-read the constitution. Be honest you have never read it.. have you?

Not only have I read it, but have done so numerous times. The word "bind" in this context comes from a rather famous phrase uttered by Madison: "let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bindhim down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” Apparently you don't know the history of your beloved Constitution as well as you think.

 

[Revolution9]

Indeed. The same can be said of a number of legal documents. That's one reason lawyers are almost universally despised.


You're entitled to your subjective opinion. If you could keep it and your regime to yourself, we could coexist perfectly harmoniously.


Ah, but you're just proving Spooner's point again.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: sqtdq, bgcolor: #EDF1F7, colspan: 2"] [h=1]“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”[/h]
[h=1]“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”[/h][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I ain't proving anybody's point except my own. I belong to no movement nor has any man got his boot on my throat. I will bite it off at the ankle. If you wanna wuss about and proclaim yerself a slave in a democracy you go right ahead. The world is how you perceive it. I ain't read Spooner and I knew this shit when I was five in rudimentary form. My drill sargeant father would try to beat my logic and common sense and compassion out of me with his web belt but I knew the truth of the matter was more important than his physical threats. he lost. I remained uncontrollable by him and a better man than him in the long ruun. I come to my conclusions by feeding facts through my thought processes. If they end up like someone else's then maybe there is a reason.

Rev9

 

[Travlyr]

Well king_nothing_,

When I responded to this post last night I did not take the time beforehand to watch the video you posted because I am confident I understand exactly who is ruling whom. You seem to not understand that, so this morning I watched the video you posted and let me just say that IMO Larken Rose is a better propagandizer than Stefan Molyneux or Adam Kokesh. Let's analyze Larken Rose's video. Do you see the fundamental fatal flaw in his premise?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk

It is glaringly obvious to me. Larken Rose has you discombobulated. But before I get to the fatal flaw in his argument let me ask you an important question. Do you believe that humanity should abide by some rules?

For example, do you believe that murder, theft, rape, assault, and trespassing ought to be illegal? If not, then you are a true anarchist. If so, then the question becomes... what is the best organization for law? For me, it is a Constitutional Representative Republic. Rules are important. What is even more important is that everyone, including the rulers, must obey the rules. Larken Rose didn't give you that option did he? Why? That's the question that needs to be asked. Why does Larken Rose omit some obvious truth?

Let me borrow a phrase from Josh with a bit of a twist.

Larken Rose is either being incompetent or fraudulent. Which do you think he is?

king_nothing_ are you going to weigh in here? Cat got you by the tongue?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Let me try again. This is Ron Paul Forums. Ron Paul says,

I am not sure where your problems lie. But, speaking for myself, I put much more faith in what Ron Paul says than what you say. History is on my side.

Actually, history is strongly against you. You still want to go back and forth with quotes, eh?

"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

 

[Travlyr]

Not only have I read it, but have done so numerous times. The word "bind" in this context comes from a rather famous phrase uttered by Madison: "let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bindhim down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” Apparently you don't know the history of your beloved Constitution as well as you think.

Then you should re-read it for content.

 

[Travlyr]

Actually, history is strongly against you. You still want to go back and forth with quotes, eh?

"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

Laugh out fuckin loud. That is what you learned from Ron Paul's book, "End The Fed?" You should read all the way to the end of the book. He actually had some important information that you are missing.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I ain't proving anybody's point except my own. I belong to no movement nor has any man got his boot on my throat. I will bite it off at the ankle. If you wanna wuss about and proclaim yerself a slave in a democracy you go right ahead. The world is how you perceive it. I ain't read Spooner and I knew this shit when I was five in rudimentary form. My drill sargeant father would try to beat my logic and common sense and compassion out of me with his web belt but I knew the truth of the matter was more important than his physical threats. he lost. I remained uncontrollable by him and a better man than him in the long ruun. I come to my conclusions by feeding facts through my thought processes. If they end up like someone else's then maybe there is a reason.

Rev9

If this really is true, you need to take some time to review your premises and conclusions and correct them-as they are false as they stand.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Then you should re-read it for content.

I've read it for content. Lofty language and erudite, but inherently flawed if individual liberty is the goal. Are you done beating this tired old fallacious line of reasoning yet? I'm bored with it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Laugh out fuckin loud. That's is what you learned from Ron Paul's book, "End The Fed?" You should read all the way to the end of the book. He actually had some important information that you are missing.

If you can take things out of context to fit your agenda, why can't I?

 

[Travlyr]

If you can take things out of context to fit your agenda, why can't I?

I'm not taking anything out of context. Why would you make that false claim? You simply don't understand who is your ruler.

 

[Travlyr]

If you can take things out of context to fit your agenda, why can't I?

Why do you want to be ruled HB?

 

[Revolution9]

If this really is true, you need to take some time to review your premises and conclusions and correct them-as they are false as they stand.

I'll tell ya what sonny boy. You enumerate those failings with a list and I will do my utmost damnedest to correct and errors rife within it. Just don't make the silly mistake of subjecting me to skewed dogma pretending to facts. As well..remember. I have no boot on my throat so you cannot come at me from that direction. I have little restriction on enjoying my life up here in the mountains. Like I said..it depends on your viewpoint. What restrictions do you accept? I do accept the fact there are bears in the woods and need to be wary when busting out the back door to chase possums away that aren't possums. To put a metaphysical semiotic in there for sublingual parsing effects.

I suspect you don't have a list worth crap in a handbasket. I will remain duly unimpressed with this line of tripe.



Rev9

 

[Travlyr]

Thanks man. Much appreciated.

Rah Rah Shish Boom Bah.

 

[Revolution9]

Whatever you think of his philosophy, you certainly haven't refuted it. You, like Roy L, have a habit of throwing out some fallacy or another and declaring yourself the victor. Bad form, and would cost you any formal debate.

This ain't a formal debate. This is a bunch of hogwash wrapped up in the swaddling rags of intellectuality. Your team has made numerous statements of such broad sweep it would take volumes to document the time frames given and events occurring undermining the situation. You outright refuse to accept the criminal subterfuge bringing us to this point and then wallop off a bunch of claptrap about a document making you a slave. It is highly apparent to me you are captured and tirade against a document that has the ideas in it that protect you as the individual..yet I hear you proclaim that you live in a democracy. Well..if you do that is your choosing. But your choice is not what is in The Constitution. That established a republic with protections for the individual. That compact has been broken and it cannot be blamed on the compact but on the laxness of the citizenry and their moralities and upholding of the law regardless of ones status.

Bottom line. Your team can propose nothing better than bluster and fume and railing against the cage they devised for themselves. Yer not gonna find a broad swath of even informed citizenry to go along with the pampers hurling fits and romper room antics dressed up as adult thinking. And you say I lost the debate.. You guys don't have a leg and I never lose because I don't play by someone's pull-them-out-of-your-arse-at-a-moments-notice rules...and I never gamble.

Rev9

 

[Travlyr]

EPIC post! Bravo!

Rah Rah Shish Boom Bah!

 

[Travlyr]

Well king_nothing_,

When I responded to this post last night I did not take the time beforehand to watch the video you posted because I am confident I understand exactly who is ruling whom. You seem to not understand that, so this morning I watched the video you posted and let me just say that IMO Larken Rose is a better propagandizer than Stefan Molyneux or Adam Kokesh. Let's analyze Larken Rose's video. Do you see the fundamental fatal flaw in his premise?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk

It is glaringly obvious to me. Larken Rose has you discombobulated. But before I get to the fatal flaw in his argument let me ask you an important question. Do you believe that humanity should abide by some rules?

For example, do you believe that murder, theft, rape, assault, and trespassing ought to be illegal? If not, then you are a true anarchist. If so, then the question becomes... what is the best organization for law? For me, it is a Constitutional Representative Republic. Rules are important. What is even more important is that everyone, including the rulers, must obey the rules. Larken Rose didn't give you that option did he? Why? That's the question that needs to be asked. Why does Larken Rose omit some obvious truth?

Let me borrow a phrase from Josh with a bit of a twist.

Larken Rose is either being incompetent or fraudulent. Which do you think he is?

Of course individuals who wish to live peacefully and successfully among others need to abide by rules. The entire question is HOW those rules should be determined, and WHO has AUTHORITY to make those rules.



Strawman. You're setting up a false/misleading characterization of "anarchy" to juxtapose your proposed solution against.



GREAT! You can voluntarily join a "Constitutional Representative Republic" and see how it goes. You might have the BEST system in the world, and I'm not going to stop you from joining this system.

But where do you get the authority to force your neighbors into the same system? Why must this system be geographically determined, and not freely entered into by willing participants? And if this solution is imposed on an entire landmass and people are not free to "alter or abolish" it by withdrawing their consent without giving up their livelihoods and property, how do we ever know if the system is empirically meeting its goals?



If the system can demand participation, the system itself does not follow the rule of law that the members of the system must follow. Just as on member can't demand that all members shop at his or her store, the system (and its agents/"rulers") should not be able to demand that the population use its services.

You can't pretend that your system is immune from universal rules just because the nominal rulers must obey the same set of rules as the ruled. If the system itself, as enacted by the rulers and the ruled, has rights greater than any individuals of the system have, it is no longer a valid rule of law.

I will address the points you made if you will first answer the questions I posed. You pretend that they are not honest questions. They are honest questions. What do you say? The first two questions are yes or no questions. The next three are opinion questions, and the last question is either/or. I'm only going to play your game if you play according to the rules.

• Let's analyze Larken Rose's video. Do you see the fundamental fatal flaw in his premise?
• For example, do you believe that murder, theft, rape, assault, and trespassing ought to be illegal?
• what is the best organization for law?
• What is even more important is that everyone, including the rulers, must obey the rules. Larken Rose didn't give you that option did he? Why?
• Why does Larken Rose omit some obvious truth?
• Larken Rose is either being incompetent or fraudulent. Which do you think he is?

 

[Travlyr]

Either the Constitution authorized judicial review, or was powerless to stop it.

That changes nothing. Either they have the power of judicial review or they don't. They don't but you get to believe whatever you want.

The fact remains that a duly constructed "Constitutional Representative Republic" has evolved into the govt that exists today, whether you think it is legitimate or not.

That is not a fact at all. The rulers we put up with today overthrew our Constitutional Republic with a coup d'état on December 23, 1913. Study some history. Real history. Don't study what the Oligarchy tells you to study. Study what really happened.

And since they have the guns and popular acquiescence, their legitimacy cannot be questioned without accepting that you will end up dead or in a cage.

And we go right back to the Oligarchy which rules over us with weapons. Like you... they want nothing to do with the rule of law. You are a good cheerleader for them.