The "Movement" is a Chimera

[FreeTraveler]

As much as I want to believe that this truly is a movement, I'm more and more realizing it's a Chimera, focused around the support of one man.

I see calls here for Kuchinich as VP, and taxation to support this or that "right" such as education or health care.

Dr. Paul is truly libertarian in his ideals, and when I see that a good portion of the people here are really socialist in their beliefs, other than the anti-war issue, I have a hard time believing that there will be any movement left after Dr. Paul leaves the scene, if he does not get elected.

What I see happening in the future is this movement becoming "socialist lite", saying theft is OK for certain reasons.

That's HOW we got where we are today. First there's a REALLY GOOD reason to tax, then a little less good reason, then special interests... it's a PROCESS folks, and as soon as you decide it's ok to steal "for a good cause", the battle becomes about what's a good cause, not about whether it's okay to steal.

The Republicans and Democrats are both thieves, they just steal for different reasons, and they both think they're justified. If you don't understand this, you don't understand THE CORE of the Constitution and Dr. Paul's message.

I'm going to attach a poll to this message to see if the movement is a Chimera or not.

 

[constituent]

define the movement freetraveler.

this movement transcends politics. i think the issue is lack of
perspective on your part... not some ideological failure on the part of others.

let us clean our own houses first...

and yes, taxation is theft.

 

[FreeTraveler]

define the movement freetraveler.

this movement transcends politics. i think the issue is lack of
perspective on your part... not some ideological failure on the part of others.

let us clean our own houses first...

and yes, taxation is theft.

The true movement is toward freedom. People who claim to be "Social Libertarians" and support universal health care, people who think Dennis Kuchinich would be a good VP even though he supports socialistic ideals... if this group is made up largely of people with those beliefs, then we are doomed to be nothing more than Republicrats in the end.

My perspective is that there are a LOT of folks here that support those views, and if that's true, we're really just rallying around the good doctor, not forging a movement toward freedom that will outlast us all.

That is the ideological failure that I fear... that people really don't realize what freedom is.

 

[Dave Pedersen]

Taxation is not theft unless the revenues are given (or redistributed) to a private entity. Some taxes are constitutional and some expenditures are constitutional. The question of theft by taxation turns on the destination of the money. If an individual is taxed in a way he cannot avoid and that money is distributed to some other individual this is theft. It is commonly called the redistribution of wealth. This is one of the primary tenets of socialism. It boils down to the belief that the state owns the individual.

The federal level of government does have some few responsibilities such as defending our borders and defending individual liberties. Therefore the Federal government has every right to tax or generate revenue to finance the execution of those duties. There are taxes and tariffs which do not force anyone to pay unless they take part in a certain transaction. Those who decide to purchase gasoline may suffer a tax but no one is forced to purchase gasoline nor is anyone forced to purchase a certain amount of gasoline. Such a tax, a tax which can be avoided or minimized is preferable.

 

[Corydoras]

You're not going to get ideological purity.

Not all of us are supporting Ron Paul for his libertarian views.

Furthermore, I think you are wrong to make taxation the litmus test for who is good enough to be in your "the true movement."

And I think such a litmus test shows remarkably little insight into the diversity of motivations people have for supporting Ron Paul.

You can make a list of beliefs that reveal which people's votes aren't good enough for Ron Paul, but all you're revealing is that you had been fooling yourself about the nature of his support for a long time.

I mean, what are you going to do if other people don't think taxation is theft? Tell them Ron Paul doesn't need their support?

 

[FreeTraveler]

Taxation is not theft unless the revenues are given (or redistributed) to a private entity. Some taxes are constitutional and some expenditures are constitutional. The question of theft by taxation turns on the destination of the money. If an individual is taxed in a way he cannot avoid and that money is distributed to some other individual this is theft. It is commonly called the redistribution of wealth. This is one of the primary tenets of socialism. It boils down to the belief that the state owns the individual.

The federal level of government does have some few responsibilities such as defending our borders and defending individual liberties. Therefore the Federal government has every right to tax or generate revenue to finance the execution of those duties. There are taxes and tariffs which do not force anyone to pay unless they take part in a certain transaction. Those who decide to purchase gasoline may suffer a tax but no one is forced to purchase gasoline nor is anyone forced to purchase a certain amount of gasoline. Such a tax, a tax which can be avoided or minimized is preferable.

I agree that the government has a need to generate revenue. I do not agree that it has the right to do so at the point of a gun. I would gladly donate some portion of my income each year to provide for a national defense, and I believe most people would do so. If you don't, then how do you explain the huge outpouring of support for World War II, when people perceived their way of life as being threatened.

Taking my money to give it to a bloated Military-Industrial Complex to defend a bunch of politicians who make bad choices in their dealings with other countries is theft, however. Without the power to tax, how would GWB and his cronies have launched an unpopular war half a world away?

The police have NO obligation to protect you; the courts have ruled that way time and time again. Don't take my word for it, look it up. The legal system should be focused on restitution to the wronged party, not punishment and revenue collection for the government.

I have no problem with user fees. If the local government chooses to add charges to gasoline purchases to pay for roads, that's relatively unobtrusive and allocated to those who use the roads. FedGov has no business in the transaction.

 

[Minuteman]

your poll question cannot really be answered. While some taxes yes are theft, some taxes are allowed by the Constitution.

 

[FreeTraveler]

You're not going to get ideological purity.

Not all of us are supporting Ron Paul for his libertarian views.

Furthermore, I think you are wrong to make taxation the litmus test for who is good enough to be in your "the true movement."

And I think such a litmus test shows remarkably little insight into the diversity of motivations people have for supporting Ron Paul.

You can make a list of beliefs that reveal which people's votes aren't good enough for Ron Paul, but all you're revealing is that you had been fooling yourself about the nature of his support for a long time.

I mean, what are you going to do if other people don't think taxation is theft? Tell them Ron Paul doesn't need their support?

Ron Paul needs every bit of support he can get, even from socialists who don't understand that his message is FREEDOM... but that IS his message, and THAT is why I support him... to get government OUT of our way and to allow us to live as FREE MEN, not as wards of the state.

I realize not everyone is supporting Ron Paul for his libertarian views. That's exactly my point. I'd like to believe that this movement toward freedom will continue into the future, but it will fracture and fail if it becomes just another Republicrat clone, with people trying to decide how to cut up the pie that they steal from their neighbors. This poll is an attempt to determine what portion of his current hardcore support is comprised of freedom-loving individuals.

Taxation is THE litmus test when it comes to freedom. If you believe it's OK to steal from your neighbors to fund your pet projects, it's just a matter of deciding who to steal from, and how much, and that's what the Republicans and Democrats do today. By it's nature, once that decision is made, the trend is ALWAYS toward taking more from the producers. History shows this to be true, from the Roman Empire to present day. Believing otherwise is no different than believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

The over-reaching government we have today is the INEVITABLE RESULT of allowing theft at the point of a gun to be institutionalized under the flag of government. The seed of taxation ALWAYS grows the tree of Empire. Ron Paul understands that, as did our Founding Fathers, and if you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself.

 

[FreeTraveler]

your poll question cannot really be answered. While some taxes yes are theft, some taxes are allowed by the Constitution.

Slavery was once allowed by the Constitution too, but that issue has been resolved. What is taxation but part-time slavery? If the fruit of my efforts is to be surrendered, what matter if the recipient be called Master or Civil Servant?

 

[jorlowitz]

It's not taxation...

I'm not arguing with your broader philosophical point, but think about this practically for a second. Every year the government takes 15-30% of my income through taxes. My life goes on.

If the government decides, however, to imprison me without cause, to deny me council, to deny me notice of the charges against me, to deny me rules of evidentiary procedure, to deny me the right to challenge my accuser, to deny me the right to refuse self-incrimination, to interrogate me using tactics and techniques which cause extreme physical, mental, and emotional discomfort, disorientation, and pain, to deny my fellow citizens the right to publicize this or to assemble peacfully with whatever goals they share, to not fear or have to endure secret searches, secret courts, secret cameras, or secret abuse... that is the crux of freedom.

Taxation is negotiable when it comes to Civil Liberties, depending on whether we see the role of government as solely to protect the rights of individuals or more broadly to allow for a certain amount of perceived common good or general welfare which is deemed (correctly or incorrectly) as unachievable through mere free markets. Taxation is not the 'epitome' of freedom, for sure, but as long as I have the right to go to work freely, that the government takes a portion of my earnings is not the worst problem (in fact many see it as the price of doing business in a free society. There might be a contradiction therein, but it's nowhere near as blunt as that which is delivered by a truly tyrannical government.

That's why "socialist lite" is attracted to this movement... because you don't get to have these debates when Big Brother is in charge, libertarian or not. I wouldn't encourage you to disparage the people attracted to Ron Paul's honesty, integrity, and character. What these supporters know, is that whether or not Ron Paul is their ideological brother, that he is a lot better than what they've been getting. At worst, they'll help get him elected. Or maybe he'll change their minds.

 

[Captain Shays]

The true movement is toward freedom. People who claim to be "Social Libertarians" and support universal health care, people who think Dennis Kuchinich would be a good VP even though he supports socialistic ideals... if this group is made up largely of people with those beliefs, then we are doomed to be nothing more than Republicrats in the end.

My perspective is that there are a LOT of folks here that support those views, and if that's true, we're really just rallying around the good doctor, not forging a movement toward freedom that will outlast us all.

That is the ideological failure that I fear... that people really don't realize what freedom is.

Traveler,

Bravo and well said! Your comments are both timely and prescient.

Just keep putting up the best arguments that you can and in time, have faith that you will be successful in convincing others. Remember that freedom makes sense and makes its own argument. Its just that many have forgotten what freedom means and others have become complacent.

 

[Corydoras]

If the government decides, however, to imprison me without cause, to deny me council, to deny me notice of the charges against me, to deny me rules of evidentiary procedure, to deny me the right to challenge my accuser, to deny me the right to refuse self-incrimination, to interrogate me using tactics and techniques which cause extreme physical, mental, and emotional discomfort, disorientation, and pain, to deny my fellow citizens the right to publicize this or to assemble peacfully with whatever goals they share, to not fear or have to endure secret searches, secret courts, secret cameras, or secret abuse... that is the crux of freedom.

Thank you for saing that. I think that it is questionable whether taxation is THE defining issue. I certainly agree that civil liberties are more fundamental than taxation.

And there are many people who would argue for the primacy of the abortion issue.

 

[Corydoras]

Taxation is THE litmus test when it comes to freedom.

You will have a really hard time convincing me that freedom from taxation is more central to liberty than freedom of thought as threatened by the "Homegrown Terrorism" bill.

 

[Independent Operator]

your poll question cannot really be answered. While some taxes yes are theft, some taxes are allowed by the Constitution.

quite the contrary. "A" being "A" is not the same as "A" is justified by "B"

the fact that "B" is used to justify "A" does not change the identity of "A." "A" still equals "A"

in syllogistic form:

Premise 1: Theft is identified as taking that which is not yours without the consent of the owner.

Premise 2: The IRS takes my wealth without my consent

Conclusion: the IRS are thieves in possession of stolen property.

You see the conclusion is a must with respect to the premises. no other conclusion can be reached. the only way to dismantle the argument is by proving the premises incorrect.

well i think we can agree on the first. What about the second? Does the the IRS take my wealth? Yes, if A.) you believe you own what you earn, and the IRS takes part of what is yours. No, if B.) you believe the IRS (government) owns it and is just lending some out to you to live on.

everyone should choose "A."

You can justify something all day long, but that does not change it's identity. There may even be a good reason for a certain excise tax or something, but that again does not change its identity.

This is why you are supposed to pay attention in philosophy class!!! everybody should understand a properly formed argument devoid of emotion and whims - THAT IS WHAT DR. PAUL IS ALL ABOUT


Now all that said. I want the vote for the Doc for whatever reason one wants - just vote for him. If is the occupation, fine. If its the fed, ok. Just vote for him. now is not the time to divide the movement. lets discuss the other issues AFTER Doc is elected - there will be plenty of time for that.

Besides even after he is elected he cant just wave a wand and give us our Libertarian utopia. A whole country needs to rediscover it's roots. This will take time.

 

[FreeTraveler]

I'm not arguing with your broader philosophical point, but think about this practically for a second. Every year the government takes 15-30% of my income through taxes. My life goes on.

...and every year, others decide that they need just a little larger slice of your efforts, that you as an individual matter just a little less than you did the year before, that the "good of society" matters just a little more than it did the year before, until, through the inevitable erosion of belief in the sanctity of the individual leads to your next scenario...

If the government decides, however, to imprison me without cause, to deny me council, to deny me notice of the charges against me, to deny me rules of evidentiary procedure, to deny me the right to challenge my accuser, to deny me the right to refuse self-incrimination, to interrogate me using tactics and techniques which cause extreme physical, mental, and emotional discomfort, disorientation, and pain, to deny my fellow citizens the right to publicize this or to assemble peacfully with whatever goals they share, to not fear or have to endure secret searches, secret courts, secret cameras, or secret abuse... that is the crux of freedom.

...and by having believed all those years before, that a little slavery was OK as long as you weren't completely enslaved, you allowed that creeping of "the common good" to override your supremacy as an individual, each year having just a little less control over your life, until "suddenly" you have no control at all.

Taxation is negotiable when it comes to Civil Liberties, depending on whether we see the role of government as solely to protect the rights of individuals or more broadly to allow for a certain amount of perceived common good or general welfare which is deemed (correctly or incorrectly) as unachievable through mere free markets. Taxation is not the 'epitome' of freedom, for sure, but as long as I have the right to go to work freely, that the government takes a portion of my earnings is not the worst problem (in fact many see it as the price of doing business in a free society. There might be a contradiction therein, but it's nowhere near as blunt as that which is delivered by a truly tyrannical government.

As you see from the scenario above, taxation must be non-negotiable when it comes to Civil Liberties. If you lose the fruits of your efforts, what matter if the recipient be called "Master" or "Civil Servant"? Thus partial slavery is better than the rule of the tyrant, the "lesser of two evils"? What you call "the price of doing business in a free society" is called "protection money" when collected by a gang that is not the currently accepted ruling gang.

That's why "socialist lite" is attracted to this movement... because you don't get to have these debates when Big Brother is in charge, libertarian or not. I wouldn't encourage you to disparage the people attracted to Ron Paul's honesty, integrity, and character. What these supporters know, is that whether or not Ron Paul is their ideological brother, that he is a lot better than what they've been getting. At worst, they'll help get him elected. Or maybe he'll change their minds.

I could not agree more, and that is why I'm trying to make the points I'm making today. It's CRUCIALLY important for people to realize that this is NOT about degree of enslavement, it's about FREEDOM, NOW, while we have a chance to be free once again. Notice the votes above... the vast majority of those here realize that it IS a question of philosophy, NOT a question of degree.

Today, we ONLY manage to have these debates because Big Brother hasn't figured out how to control the Internet, not because we still have any freedoms left worth debating. We are not having these discussions because of any recognition of our rights. We are having these discussions because they no longer control the medium of communication. If you believe we've all been content all these years and would not have been spreading this message if we had a way to do so, you're mistaken. The revolution IS the Internet; it finally gives us a way for freedom-lovers to join together, much as the printing press did in the days before it was controlled by Big Brother.

I agree with you in many ways. However, the lesson we MUST learn from this revolution, if it is to be the last, is that if you surrender to the belief that the government has a right to your labors, you have, AT THAT INSTANT, started down the long slope that leads to loss of the Bill of Rights. From that point on, you are fighting a battle to keep a little less of your freedoms each year.

If the line is not drawn at the philosophical level, then the line becomes a matter of opinion... and opinion is ALWAYS for a little more government, a little less freedom, due to the workings of a democracy... and one day you again face the burning of the Bill of Rights and a President who derides your Constitution as "Just a goddamned piece of paper."

 

[FreeTraveler]

Traveler,

Bravo and well said! Your comments are both timely and prescient.

Just keep putting up the best arguments that you can and in time, have faith that you will be successful in convincing others. Remember that freedom makes sense and makes its own argument. Its just that many have forgotten what freedom means and others have become complacent.

I'm much heartened to see that at this time, 96% of those here "get it" and understand we're fighting a battle of philosophy, not one of degree.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Thank you for saing that. I think that it is questionable whether taxation is THE defining issue. I certainly agree that civil liberties are more fundamental than taxation.

And there are many people who would argue for the primacy of the abortion issue.

Taxation and Civil Liberties are one and the same. If you must toil for a portion of your time to pay some group "protection money," you have no Liberty.

The abortion issue is a thorny one; if you believe life begins at conception, then you must be pro-life. OTOH, I have no doubt that abortions will occur, whether in a sterile operating room or in a back alley with a coathanger. I believe that Dr. Paul's stance on moving the issue toward the local level is the correct one, and as a libertarian, I believe the issue ultimately has to be TOTALLY local... between a woman, her God, and her Doctor. In a marriage, I believe the father also has a say.

 

[Corydoras]

Taxation and Civil Liberties are one and the same. If you must toil for a portion of your time to pay some group "protection money," you have no Liberty.

This simply isn't true. I can do my work while thinking whatever the heck I want. Laws are now trying to monitor and control what I think. You can't see that thoughts are more fundamental than labor? What are you, a Marxist?

I believe that Dr. Paul's stance on moving the issue toward the local level is the correct one, and as a libertarian, I believe the issue ultimately has to be TOTALLY local... between a woman, her God, and her Doctor. In a marriage, I believe the father also has a say.

You don't get the point, do you? There are people who believe that the physical integrity of their bodies is more fundamental than taxation.

 

[Independent Operator]

Today, we ONLY manage to have these debates because Big Brother hasn't figured out how to control the Internet, not because we still have any freedoms left worth debating. We are not having these discussions because of any recognition of our rights. We are having these discussions because they no longer control the medium of communication. If you believe we've all been content all these years and would not have been spreading this message if we had a way to do so, you're mistaken. The revolution IS the Internet; it finally gives us a way for freedom-lovers to join together, much as the printing press did in the days before it was controlled by Big Brother.

This will all change IF the Doc is not elected. If Doc is not elected you will hear a collective sigh of relief out of DC.

Then the real work will begin (we cant alow that to happen again, that was close):

Lets see for starters. How about classifying sites like youtube "broadcasting corporations" and subjecting them to the same "guidelines" - for the children of course.

How about requiring all blogs to be classified as "print media" subject to all the regulations thereto.

How about taxing each and every ebay transaction - easy to do.

Oh, the things evil government types can think up.

All of these types of things will be tucked away in bills with names such as: "The Omnibus Child Online Protection Against Pornography Act" or some such stupidity.

What?? Your're not against the anti-child porn act are you??

 

[RP4U&ME]

Wow, there are at least 26 forum members that either don't understand the question, haven't read the Constitution, or are ideological simpletons.
Scary, whatever the excuse.