The "Movement" is a Chimera

[FreeTraveler]

I don't believe socialists make up the core of this movement. I believe that the main contingent of this movement that is creating momentum believes in the best principles (constitutionally limited government, individual liberty).

Yep, 85% at the moment. I'm very pleased at the results.

 

[MsDoodahs]

So what about the fruits of your labor that are surrendered because you have to pay more money for orange juice due to frost cutting into supplies? Are you a slave to weather now? I guess the argument to that though is that you can't control weather but taxes are created by people and you can control people?

Goons with guns don't come to your door if you CHOOSE not to buy higher priced OJ. Don't pay your taxes and eventually, goons with guns enter the picture.

 

[Abegweit]

85% at the moment. I'm very pleased at the results.

Well, I'm not. While of course I agree with the proposition, I was hoping that there were more people than just us hardcore loonies.

There are more important issues than the question of what kind of taxation, if any, constitutes theft. The murder of millions of foreigners who have done nothing to harm us, the outrageous attack on our civil liberties at home, the war on (some) drugs, the destruction of our money... these are all more important than taxation. These are the real problems and indeed they the ones that that Ron Paul intends to tackle.

In fact, the main reason why taxation is important is not because of the theft (I can live on the half of my money they let me keep) but because they use it to commit such heinous crimes.

 

[davver]

In fact, the main reason why taxation is important is not because of the theft (I can live on the half of my money they let me keep) but because they use it to commit such heinous crimes.

When they can take it without asking you, the fact that it is spent on things you don't like is INEVITABLE. After all, what are you going to do about it?

 

[RonPaulalways]

So what about the fruits of your labor that are surrendered because you have to pay more money for orange juice due to frost cutting into supplies? Are you a slave to weather now? I guess the argument to that though is that you can't control weather but taxes are created by people and you can control people?

kalami, rights are created by social contract, and so can only involve social players. You cannot create a contract with the weather to guarantee you non-frost days.

 

[Abegweit]

After all, what are you going to do about it?

I don't believe that there is anything I can do about it. The state arose because of technology; when it dies it will be for the same reason. The Ron Paul movement gives me hope that the Internet might just be that technology. I had kinda given up on that thought about two years ago; perhaps I was wrong... And maybe as we become stronger, we won't be so dependent on a single man either.

When they can take it without asking you, the fact that it is spent on things you don't like is INEVITABLE.

It's actually worse than that. It is inevitable that the money be spent on criminal activities, whether I approve of them or not. You see, the purpose of taxation is theft. This is a different point than the question asked in the poll and, to my mind, a more important one.

The state is not a bunch of people getting together to build roads, care for the poor, protect rights or whatever. It is a criminal gang whose purpose is to provide a livelihood for thieves. This was obvious in the days of Kings and Queens but it hasn't changed simply because we vote for the thief in chief.

The only way that the modern democratic state can get people to tolerate it is to invent demons to chase and to fight wars against them. The only thing the state has ever been competent at is fighting wars. Today we fight wars against Nouns. War against Terr, War Against Poverty, War Against Drugs, War Against Child Abuse, War Against Drunk Driving. War. War. War.

We never win these wars but that is irrelevant because the purpose of the state is theft. In fact we can't. How would the thieves make a living if we won?

Ron Paul wants to dismantle some of the more egregious parts of the machine. For that I support him. What he does with the money he saves is almost a secondary consideration. Saving the Old Age Ponzi Scheme is OK. Even paying down the so-called debt to the thieving bankers is better than using it to murder innocents.

 

[FreeTraveler]

kalami, rights are created by social contract, and so can only involve social players. You cannot create a contract with the weather to guarantee you non-frost days.

Not to be too picky, but natural rights exist prior to ANY social contract.

One discussion, at http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html

Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

The concept of natural rights received one of its most forceful expositions in the writings of Englishman John Locke (1632-1704), who argued that man was originally born into a state of nature where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence man was entitled to enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property.

However, not all men chose to live within the confines of the natural laws and presented threats to the liberties of the others. At this stage man entered into a social contract (compact) in which a state (government) was formed to guarantee the rights of the members of society. Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

 

[RonPaulalways]

^ Agreed. I believe there is a natural social contract between individuals (don't steal, attack, coerce etc others) which relates to these natural rights.

 

[OptionsTrader]

flawed poll. cannot vote.

 

[RP4U&ME]

Wow, I consented to having my wealth taken. When did i do that?

Actually p2 clearly states "without my consent" not assumed...stated.

next.

You make no sense trying to argue the unarguable. Just admit that you're simple trying justify, because you can not re-define. A is A. It is a Natural Law that can not be bent by your will. Gravity exists my friend.

That is that.

You're kidding right?
Again, your premises are wrong. Consent is given. Not your specific individual literal consent, but the consent of the majority. How many laws do you personally get consulted for the OK on? You realize the benefits of taxation every day all around you and take them for granted, and you're lucky for it. Because the wisdom of the many outweighs the folly of the few like you.
If all you got out of your Philosophy 101 course is a fondness for syllogistic gymnastics, I suggest you either retake the course or ask for your money back.

 

[FreeTraveler]

You're kidding right?
Again, your premises are wrong. Consent is given. Not your specific individual literal consent, but the consent of the majority. How many laws do you personally get consulted for the OK on? You realize the benefits of taxation every day all around you and take them for granted, and you're lucky for it. Because the wisdom of the many outweighs the folly of the few like you.
If all you got out of your Philosophy 101 course is a fondness for syllogistic gymnastics, I suggest you either retake the course or ask for your money back.

I do not surrender my consent to the consent of the majority.

So if Hillary gets elected and implements all her disasters you'll just go along?

So Dauchau was OK because the majority of German people were OK with it?

 

[Antonius Stone]

taxation by the FEDERAL gov't is theft

taxation by the states is OK, simply because its so much easier to control within the states. You have more representatives per amount of population, there's likely to be more citizen oversight, the State Capitol is almost always closer to your home than DC and then theres the State Referendum.

 

[FreeTraveler]

taxation by the FEDERAL gov't is theft

taxation by the states is OK, simply because its so much easier to control within the states. You have more representatives per amount of population, there's likely to be more citizen oversight, the State Capitol is almost always closer to your home than DC and then theres the State Referendum.

Uh... No. By that theory, the crook in the alleyway that sticks a gun in your ribs because he doesn't have money for a sandwich is the most proper government of all.

 

[constituent]

Consent is given. Not your specific individual literal consent, but the consent of the majority... Because the wisdom of the many outweighs the folly of the few like you.

....

If all you got out of your Philosophy 101 course is a fondness for syllogistic gymnastics, I suggest you either retake the course or ask for your money back.

1. you mean this isn't a republic? someone should tell dr. paul

2. then you close for the thread as you opened, w/ ad hominem... hey,
guess it's all you've really got.

 

[Antonius Stone]

Uh... No. By that theory, the crook in the alleyway that sticks a gun in your ribs because he doesn't have money for a sandwich is the most proper government of all.

what state are you from? You can keep your tax free state and I'll have the taxes in mine. and if you don't like it then move to New Hampshire.

the point is that Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist and a Federalist before he is a libertarian, so he can't impose libertarianism on the individual states and I think that is the most appealing part of his position and this revolution.
That's why this is movement is turning into a "big tent"- Ron Paul isn't telling people what they can and cant do, he's just telling them what the federal government can't do. That's why he is appealing to big government liberals, social conservatives and libertarians alike. All these people tend to be geographically distributed so having a one-size-fits all rule from the Federal government going on down is definitely going to make some people happy and others unhappy.

By decentralizing it and leaving it to the states (and ultimately the people; popular referendum, hello?) that gives people that want to live in cloistered societies with no abortion, sunday blue laws, etc etc the opportunity to do just that. It also gives the people that want to live in a socialist system the opportunity to do that as well. You have to respect the differences that exist amongst the states. The reason why there are so many people that are hurting and upset right now is because the Federal government has failed to respect that for the past 150 or so years now.

The federal government, its laws, its regulations and its taxes are extremely arbitrary and for the most part do not serve the interests of the individuals. The state governments on the other hand are far more democratic and far more receptive to change.
If the state of California wants Universal Socialized Medicine then let them try it. If it works, praise god. If it doesn't, then thank god that it wasn't implemented on the federal level so that it could hurt everyone in the country. And thank god they can have a referendum to put it down as soon as it becomes clear that its not helping. Add in the fact that States have a popular recall and it becomes really clear that officials that rob the state gov't are very accountable to the people.

The main reason why failures like Gray Davis and Mike Huckabee come to power in the states is because people haven't been paying as much attention to their state governments because for the past 90 or so years, all their money's been going to the FED and we've been having all these stupid international wars. end that and restore states' rights.

and respect the fact that the states have the rights to implement systems that you might consider to be "stupid". and if you still hate your states' income tax then move to new hampshire.

 

[Dr.3D]

Conservative Father/Liberal Daughter Talk

Humm... I received this in my email the other day. Perhaps it is simplistic but effective for talking to people who don't understand socialism.

Conservative Father/Liberal Daughter Talk




A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that
would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

 

[NMCB3]

Income taxation and property tax are most certainly theft. If you do not own the fruits of your labor or your property what do you own? Property rights are an essential part of individual liberty. The Constitution is a tortured document, it has been twisted to mean anything the govt wants it to mean. The courts have effectively neutered it. For example the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, but the courts have ruled that conscription is constitutional! I`m not a lawyer but being forced into the military against your will is certainly involuntary servitude. Also the average American works from January to May just to pay his federal taxes. On this plantation you are effectively a slave for five months of the year. Your master will let you keep your income from June through December. However he will steal more of your wealth in more indirect ways such as inflation.

 

[PHenry]

Taxes on income and estates are definitely theft...

 

[xao]

Ron Paul is .......... a Federalist

When did he join the federalist party that many of the founders were against?

Ron is a REPUBLICAN. It's the last time I will say it. If people don't understand then they are mentally challenged.

 

[Independent Operator]

Not your specific individual literal consent, but the consent of the majority. How many laws do you personally get consulted for the OK on? You realize the benefits of taxation every day all around you and take them for granted, and you're lucky for it. Because the wisdom of the many outweighs the folly of the few like you.

WOW!!! I'm guessing that you are not a supporter of Liberty.

You are digging yourself deeper and destroying your credibility with every comment.

I don't need to type another word on the subject; your last post says all we need to know.

So, this is the last I will Type on THAT subject as it has been exhausted to death. You are either disingenuous or really ignorant. I can't force you out of your ignorance of the subject. So it serves no purpose to continue.

------------------------------------------------

All that said. It Begs the question: Why are you a Dr. Paul Supporter??

You don't seem to agree with him - or is it a single issue?? Because that gets back to the original "Chimera" issue.

You do know, of course, that Dr. Paul is a Libertarian don't you?? You do know that he ran for President in 1988, don't you?? You do know that Dr. Paul disagrees with every last word that you have typed??