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

Was that question addressed to me? Shall I answer?

I find the power to implement NDAA in the Constitution because the people calling themselves the government in accord with the Constitution have implemented it. The power may not be there in any rational reading of the text, but again, either the Constitution authorized NDAA or it was powerless to prevent it.

It's an Oligarchy that you and your cheerleaders fully support. Like you ... the rulers do not want to be constrained by law. Why do you cheerlead for the Oligarchy? I don't know. Either you are paid by them or they have you indoctrinated to support them.
 
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.
Judicial review was seized by the Court during Jefferson's Presidency. He may have been opposed to it, but he let it happen under his watch. The Constitution certainly didn't stop them.
 
Judicial review was seized by the Court during Jefferson's Presidency. He may have been opposed to it, but he let it happen under his watch. The Constitution certainly didn't stop them.

It was up to the People and the States to keep their power. Most of the people enjoying their freedom likely didn't know that and the States were forming so fast that they had much more important business to tend to. The Constitution can't stop anything. It is simply a blueprint to follow. The People have to put a stop to the shenanigans. The People have the power. But before they can do that they have to know about the shenanigans.
 
It is glaringly obvious to me. Larken Rose has you discombobulated.
Larken Rose doesn't have me "discombobulated." It's a video I found which explains what I already believed. Larken Rose himself didn't convince me of anything.

For example, do you believe that murder, theft, rape, assault, and trespassing ought to be illegal? If not, then you are a true anarchist.
This is such a ridiculous way to frame the question. You assume that all those things would be allowed in a stateless society, which is anything but the case. Do people, in general, have an incentive to prevent and punish those acts? Yes? Then what makes you think we need a socialized solution and a territorial monopoly in order to solve those problems? You may as well be soapboxing about the need for socialized food, since we all need food just as much as we need protection from murderers and thieves.

If so, then the question becomes... what is the best organization for law? For me, it is a Constitutional Representative Republic.
"For you." What about everyone who is not you? As mczerone already said, go join a "Constitutional Representative Republic" and leave me the hell alone. You won't allow that, though. You insist on subjugating me to an authority of your choosing.

Interestingly, you have something in common with anarcho-communists in regards to interaction with anarcho-capitalists. A predominantly an-cap society allows for an-com enclaves to exist, but a predominantly an-com society does not allow for an-cap enclaves to exist. In the same way, a predominantly an-cap society allows for "Constitutional Representative Republic" enclaves to exist, but a "Constitutional Representative Republic" does not allow for an-cap enclaves to exist. This all makes it very clear who are the oppressors and who aren't.

What is even more important is that everyone, including the rulers, must obey the rules.
You actually believe that fanciful notion is possible? Here we have the most restrictive Constitution in history, and not one period in time when it was actually fully obeyed. Even if it was fully obeyed, though, I would still object to it for reasons already stated in this thread, so it's irrelevant.

Larken Rose is either being incompetent or fraudulent. Which do you think he is?
You're really smitten with that false dilemma fallacy, huh?

You do not have the same mindset as king_nothing_

That's the point. I'm not going to get into an argument with you about my response to king_nothing_. I'll address your points in due time after I take the opportunity to evaluate your response to my response to him/her.
This is a peculiar thing for you to say considering you seem to be having trouble discerning what my mindset even is.

I haven't read one thing in here from mczerone that I can disagree with.

king_nothing_ are you going to weigh in here? Cat got you by the tongue?
This is your line of thinking, isn't it: if I get the last post in, and the most, I win. Forget about the actual substance of the posts; if I respond to a post and receive no answer, I have automatically won. If you want to tell yourself this, be my guest. There is a reason why I've posted less than once a day on average since I've joined. Once I feel I've sufficiently spoken my piece, I'm done. I don't concern myself with megaposters who beat me over the head with inane responses which demonstrate an utter lack of absorption of what I've said, all in the quest to "win" a last post battle.
 
Last edited:
It was up to the People and the States to keep their power. Most of the people enjoying their freedom likely didn't know that and the States were forming so fast that they had much more important business to tend to. The Constitution can't stop anything. It is simply a blueprint to follow. The People have to put a stop to the shenanigans. The People have the power. But before they can do that they have to know about the shenanigans.
What do you think the odds are of modern politicians and people preserving and enforcing the Constitution when the founding fathers couldn't even do it? Don't you think it's futile if even they couldn't stop judicial review? The Constitutional Convention is the one who wrote it. They could have said exactly what they meant. Today's justices try to guess at what the founders meant, but back then they were actually alive!
 
What do you think the odds are of modern politicians and people preserving and enforcing the Constitution when the founding fathers couldn't even do it? Don't you think it's futile if even they couldn't stop judicial review? The Constitutional Convention is the one who wrote it. They could have said exactly what they meant. Today's justices try to guess at what the founders meant, but back then they were actually alive!

Actually, it's very easy to tell what they meant by reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
 
Larken Rose doesn't have me "discombobulated." It's a video I found which explains what I already believed. Larken Rose himself didn't convince me of anything.


This is such a ridiculous way to frame the question. You assume that all those things would be allowed in a stateless society, which is anything but the case. Do people, in general, have an incentive to prevent and punish those acts? Yes? Then what makes you think you need a socialized solution and a territorial monopoly in order to solve those problems? You may as well be soapboxing about the need for socialized food, since we all need food just as much as we need protection from murderers and thieves.


"For you." What about everyone who is not you? As mczerone already said, go join a "Constitutional Representative Republic" and leave me the hell alone. You won't allow that, though. You insist on subjugating me to an authority of your choosing.

Interestingly, you have something in common with anarcho-communists in regards to interaction with anarcho-capitalists. A predominantly an-cap society allows for an-com enclaves to exist, but a predominantly an-com society does not allow for an-cap enclaves to exist. In the same way, a predominantly an-cap society allows for "Constitutional Representative Republic" enclaves to exist, but a "Constitutional Representative Republic" does not allow for an-cap enclaves to exist. This all makes it very clear who are the oppressors and who aren't.


You actually believe that fanciful notion is possible? Here we have the most restrictive Constitution in history, and not one instance in time when it was actually fully obeyed. Even if it was fully obeyed, though, I would still object to it for reasons already stated in this thread, so it's irrelevant.


You're really smitten with that false dilemma fallacy, huh?


This is a peculiar thing for you to say considering you seem to be having trouble discerning what my mindset even is.

I haven't read one thing in here from mczerone that I can disagree with.


This is your line of thinking, isn't it: if I get the last post in, and the most, I win. Forget about the actual substance of the posts; if I respond to a post and receive no answer, I have automatically won. If you want to tell yourself this, be my guest. There is a reason why I've posted less than once a day on average since I've joined. Once I feel I've sufficiently spoken my piece, I'm done. I don't concern myself with megaposters who beat me over the head with inane responses which demonstrate an utter lack of absorption of what I've said, all in the quest to "win" a last post battle.

I posed several honest questions which you did not attempt to answer. Try again.

  • Do you see the fundamental fatal flaw in his premise?
  • 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?
  • 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?
 
I still think there can be value in fighting a political fight, but you can't really blame an-caps and etc. for their skepticism for a political solution.
 
What do you think the odds are of modern politicians and people preserving and enforcing the Constitution when the founding fathers couldn't even do it? Don't you think it's futile if even they couldn't stop judicial review? The Constitutional Convention is the one who wrote it. They could have said exactly what they meant. Today's justices try to guess at what the founders meant, but back then they were actually alive!

We are finding people who are willing to stand up for their rights. You can join us or you can fight us. That is a choice you make.
 
For example, do you believe that murder, theft, rape, assault, and trespassing ought to be illegal?
Only a person who believes in government would want anything to be illegal. No government means no laws.

It doesn't mean no order, though. There are still ways to punish those who aggress against others. Which is the whole point of anarcho-capitalism.
 
I was trying to not come back to this topic, but this last post is just too sad to end on.
It's an Oligarchy that you and your cheerleaders fully support.

If you had been at least halfway paying attention during this argument or the last few months of arguments, you'd know that I am merely trying to put forth what I think is a better system, morally and effectively, to constrain the oligarchic rule of the state.

Like you ... the rulers do not want to be constrained by law.

First, you don't get that I do want to be restrained by law. But state law has failed to restrain the people from violent acts, whether ruled or rulers.
Second, how well has the constitution done to restrain the rulers?

Why do you cheerlead for the Oligarchy? I don't know. Either you are paid by them or they have you indoctrinated to support them.

What are we advocating but the complete destruction of what gives them power, namely the monopoly on state power. This is exactly the opposite of what they want to happen.

If you want to talk about indoctrination, let's look to the person who favors letting a monopoly government be constrained solely by its bylaws, even though that is EXACTLY what got us into the current situation. So who is indoctrinated by TPTB and is calling for a system that places an oligarchy above the law?

I'm done with you on this topic, please consider any question here as rhetorical, as I will not be responding to any of your replies.
 
I was trying to not come back to this topic, but this last post is just too sad to end on.


If you had been at least halfway paying attention during this argument or the last few months of arguments, you'd know that I am merely trying to put forth what I think is a better system, morally and effectively, to constrain the oligarchic rule of the state.



First, you don't get that I do want to be restrained by law. But state law has failed to restrain the people from violent acts, whether ruled or rulers.
Second, how well has the constitution done to restrain the rulers?



What are we advocating but the complete destruction of what gives them power, namely the monopoly on state power. This is exactly the opposite of what they want to happen.

If you want to talk about indoctrination, let's look to the person who favors letting a monopoly government be constrained solely by its bylaws, even though that is EXACTLY what got us into the current situation. So who is indoctrinated by TPTB and is calling for a system that places an oligarchy above the law?

I'm done with you on this topic, please consider any question here as rhetorical, as I will not be responding to any of your replies.

You avoided all my questions. They were honest questions. I'm a Ron Paul guy simply supporting him and his ideas. Why aren't you?
 
Last edited:
You avoided all my questions. They were honest questions. I'm a Ron Paul guy simply supporting him and his ideas. Why aren't you?

Okay you trolled one more response out of me.

Why do you beat your wife? Why can't you stop setting buildings on fire?

If you don't directly answer my questions, you must not be supporting Ron Paul.
 
You avoided all my questions. They were honest questions. I'm a Ron Paul guy simply supporting him and his ideas. Why aren't you?
Mull this over: A person who wants to eliminate the State may, as an intermediate step, support people who wish to reduce the power and influence of the State.
 
Okay you trolled one more response out of me.

Why do you beat your wife? Why can't you stop setting buildings on fire?

If you don't directly answer my questions, you must not be supporting Ron Paul.

I hold the exact same political philosophy as Ron Paul. You don't which makes you an opponent. I'm simply calling like I see it.

On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
September 23, 2004

Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul

"The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.

The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.

Although the 19th Century generally was kind to the intent of the Constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign states. The Civil War profoundly changed the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.

Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post-Civil War period, it was not until the 20th Century that steady and significant erosion of the constitutional restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties, but foreign affairs as well.

We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Our leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty, and our republican form of government.

Today the pragmatism of the politicians, as they spend more than $2 trillion annually, creates legislative chaos. The vultures consume the carcass of liberty without remorse. On the contrary, we hear politicians brag incessantly about their ability to deliver benefits to their districts, thus qualifying themselves for automatic re-election.

The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty. It's not the Constitution that gives us our freedom, the Constitution is needed to keep the power seekers from usurping that freedom and to hold government in check.

But our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing, and regulating. The complacent electorate, who are led to believe their interests and needs are best cared for by a huge bureaucratic welfare state, convince themselves that enormous federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with another day.

The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain confidence in the benefits of liberty -- and demand it from their elected leaders -- Congress will act appropriately.

The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly, and return our nation to its proper republican origins. The results would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, and a work made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire.

No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside the restraints placed on government by the Constitution.

The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it's understandable that abuse occurs. But it shouldn't be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace and the Constitution loses all meaning.

Unfortunately that is where we are today. This nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document, taught as gospel in our government schools, must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document -- but they correctly made the process tedious, and thus difficult.

Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it will be difficult if not impossible to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.

I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever, and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve a partisan victory. The real question is will we once again accept the clear restraints placed on the power of the national government by the Constitution.

Obviously the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important "election" of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it's worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant Constitution with which we have been so blessed."

"The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty." - Ron Paul
 
I'm a Ron Paul guy simply supporting him and his ideas. Why aren't you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4&t=3m55s

Q: "I know you stand for the Constitution, but what do you say to people who advocate for self-government, rather than a return to the Constitution?"

Ron Paul: "Great, fine...and I think that's really what my goal is. Isn't it interesting that if you have a government, that they will want us to all be socialistic in uses, but they will never allow an enclave go and become libertarian and just accept nothing, receive nothing, accept no obligations. But if we had a libertarian society, we'd have no qualms if a group of people want to go over and run things socialistic. You had some of these in our early history, and they literally lived as socialist enclaves, and as long as they didn't have to live off us...I mean even today, the Amish and others like that, they'd like to be left alone, and they should never be required to pay social security or income tax. So libertarianism is much more tolerant than socialism. Socialism has to live off those who produce, and that's why they have to use coercion."

Sounds like Ron Paul wants to leave me alone. Doesn't sound like he wants to force me into a Constitutional Representative Republic against my will like you do, Trav. Your Ron Paul idolatry seems to be waning. You better work on that.

So, Trav, if you want to live in a society with socialized courts, police, military, etc., go ahead, I won't stop you. Stop trying to force it on me, though.

By the way, I'm not an idolater, nor would I suspect anyone else in here who is in agreement with me to be, so attempting to scold someone for not being as good of an idolater as you probably isn't going to have the desired effect. I respect Ron Paul and agree with him often, but I do not turn to him for every answer.
 
Last edited:
For some reason this thread, indeed any "discussion" involvinr Travlyr, make me think of geometry, specifically angles greater than 90 degrees, but less than 180 degrees.

Wonder why that is?
 
For some reason this thread, indeed any "discussion" involvinr Travlyr, make me think of geometry, specifically angles greater than 90 degrees, but less than 180 degrees.

Wonder why that is?

Why is it that you rarely add anything important to the discussion? I support Ron Paul's exact message. You don't. You simply work to sabotage Ron's message. Why?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4&t=3m55s

Q: "I know you stand for the Constitution, but what do you say to people who advocate for self-government, rather than a return to the Constitution?"

Ron Paul: "Great, fine...and I think that's really what my goal is. Isn't it interesting that if you have a government, that they will want us to all be socialistic in uses, but they will never allow an enclave go and become libertarian and just accept nothing, receive nothing, accept no obligations. But if we had a libertarian society, we'd have no qualms if a group of people want to go over and run things socialistic. You had some of these in our early history, and they literally lived as socialist enclaves, and as long as they didn't have to live off us...I mean even today, the Amish and others like that, they'd like to be left alone, and they should never be required to pay social security or income tax. So libertarianism is much more tolerant than socialism. Socialism has to live off those who produce, and that's why they have to use coercion."

Sounds like Ron Paul wants to leave me alone. Doesn't sound like he wants to force me into a Constitutional Representative Republic against my will like you do, Trav. Your Ron Paul idolatry seems to be waning. You better work on that.

So, Trav, if you want to live in a society with socialized courts, police, military, etc., go ahead, I won't stop you. Stop trying to force it on me, though.

By the way, I'm not an idolater, nor would I suspect anyone else in here who is in agreement with me to be, so attempting to scold someone for not being as good of an idolater as you probably isn't going to have the desired effect. I respect Ron Paul and agree with him often, but I do not turn to him for every answer.

I really don't care what you do in your life as long as you don't try and paint Ron Paul's message as anti-State. It's not.

"It's not the Constitution that gives us our freedom, the Constitution is needed to keep the power seekers from usurping that freedom and to hold government in check." - Ron Paul

You are free to misunderstand the world in which you live. The rest of us will work for liberty, peace, and prosperity.
 
Back
Top