Thought y'all would want to know what Occupy DC thinks of Ron Paul

Out of context.

Full quote of your entire post, with a direct link to the full context. Again, I welcome people to read the full context. Please... do yourself a favour and read that thread, it is quite enlightening. :)

That would be the honest way.

Following that logic, I should have to copy and paste all of liberty defined in order to quote from it...
 
Clay Trainor's conclusion: Ron Paul advocates everything Lysander Spooner ever said. That's why Ron is running for president so he can abolish the "Constitution of No Authority." Sheesh.

strawman2.jpg
 
Clay Trainor's conclusion: Ron Paul advocates everything Lysander Spooner ever said. That's why Ron is running for president so he can abolish the "Constitution of No Authority." Sheesh.

noneedtoaggress said:
Ron: Well, I tell you what... I don't critisize Lysander....
but... and his point is very well taken.
Maybe someday we'll mature to that point.

But Ron, that's heresy!
 
Last edited:
You people do realize that Ron Paul is running for president, right? The highest state office in the world, right? President of the United States of America. Commander in Chief. Right? You don't have to be a third grade graduate to understand this stuff.
...
 
I've heard Ron Paul say the role of the government is to protect liberty. If liberty does not need protecting, or if liberty can be protected by other organizations then government is not necessary. We're seeking liberty, not government. If it comes with government attached then so be it, but it's important to remember government is not the creator of liberty, however it can be the destroyer of liberty. Smart lawbreakers will seek to become lawmakers.
 
ClayTrainor, you should probably give the guy his strawman back so he can grasp some more filler. Looks like he's running out.
 
I've heard Ron Paul say the role of the government is to protect liberty.

Yup, he has said that, and basically argues that's what it ought to do if it is to exist. However, he also acknowledges realities such as...

"Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined

"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

"Government is the enemy of liberty" - Ron Paul @ CPAC


If liberty does not need protecting, or if liberty can be protected by other organizations then government is not necessary. We're seeking liberty, not government. If it comes with government attached then so be it, but it's important to remember government is not the creator of liberty, however it can be the destroyer of liberty and that smart lawbreakers will seek to become lawmakers.

Well stated! :)
 
I've heard Ron Paul say the role of the government is to protect liberty. If liberty does not need protecting, or if liberty can be protected by other organizations then government is not necessary. We're seeking liberty, not government. If it comes with government attached then so be it, but it's important to remember government is not the creator of liberty, however it can be the destroyer of liberty. Smart lawbreakers will seek to become lawmakers.

Reading Ron Paul's books shows how enlightened he is. He is defender of liberty and supporter of the constitution because what we need now is to return to the rule of law. A return to the gold standard or more accurately competing currencies will liberate. That is one of his primary messages.

“People fight the gold standard,” said Ludwig von Mises, “because they want to substitute national autarky for free trade, war for peace, totalitarian government omnipotence for liberty.” It is no coincidence that the nineteenth century, a time of gold coin standards for the most part, was an era of peace. Nor is it a coincidence that the twentieth century combines wars with paper money.
 
Last edited:
Clay Trainor's conclusion: Ron Paul advocates everything Lysander Spooner ever said. That's why Ron is running for president so he can abolish the "Constitution of No Authority." Sheesh.

Last I heard he is running for president because his supporters convinced him to.
 
Reading Ron Paul's books shows how enlightened he is. He is defender of liberty and supporter of the constitution because what we need now is to return to the rule of law. A return to the gold standard or more accurately competing currencies will liberate. That is one of his primary messages.

I also support a return to the constitution (over what we have today, but not ultimately... "hopefully we can mature beyond it"). Competition in currencies is more than compatible with ancap.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how there's so much confusion.

According to Ron, his ideal society is a fully voluntary one ("I believe voluntary interaction is the best way to go"). He has clearly decided that his best chance at affecting change is through government (He's running for president). If he is serious about affecting change through government, then the closest he can get to his ideals while allowing for the opportunity of his political success is via championing a constitutionally bound America similar to the "relative voluntary society" he believes we had in our early history ("I'm a defender of the Constitution"). He has not abandoned his ideals of a voluntary society ("I believe voluntary interaction is the best way to go") - he has simply decided that binding the current government to the existing constitution is the best, quickest, and closest option we have to a fully voluntary society at this time ("I'm a defender of the Constitution").

It's not that complicated. Either he's ultimately a voluntaryist and it makes perfect practical sense why he claims to be a "defender of the constitution," or he is ultimately a constitutionalist and has lied and contradicted himself in saying "the non-initiation of force and voluntary interaction is the best way to go."
 
Last edited:
I don't see how there's so much confusion.

According to Ron, his ideal society is a fully voluntary one. He has clearly decided that his best chance at affecting change is through government. If he is serious about affecting change through government, then the closest he can get to his ideals while allowing the opportunity for political success is via championing a constitutionally bound America similar to the "relative voluntary society" he believes we had in our early history. He has not abandoned his ideals of a voluntary society - he has simply decided that binding the current government to the existing constitution is the best, quickest, and closest option we have to a fully voluntary society at this time.

no-no-its-not-true-thats-29495-1310426776-3.jpg


HERESY! FALSE IDOLS!
 
What is it with ancaps acting like they're the epitome of logical and moral consistency? To me, that's just arrogance.


If we disagree, one of us is wrong - Libertarians and Computer Science

Just as programmers have a model of computation, libertarians have what I call a model of interaction. Just as a programmer can “playcomputer” by simulating how specific lines of code will change program state, a libertarian can “play society” by simulating how specific actions will change societal state. The libertarian model of interaction cuts across economic, political, cultural, and social issues. For just about any given law, for example, a libertarian can tell you exactly how such a law will affect society (minimum wage laws create unemployment by setting a lower-bound on entry-level wages, drug prohibition artificially inflates drug prices which leads to violent turf wars, etc.). As another example, for any given social goal, a libertarian will be able to tell you the problems generated by having government try to achieve that goal and will tell you how such a goal can be achieved in a libertarian society.I believe this is qualitatively different from other predictive models because of the breadth of the model and the focus on transitions (both of which are also true of programming). On newsgroups I often see questions … [that] … libertarians almost always quickly answer by saying, “I’ll tell you exactly what would happen…” And, surprisingly, the libertarians tend to give the same answer in most cases.
....

From my observation, libertarians tend to think that all political questions can be answered with an almost mathematical certitude. There is no such thing as “a friendly disagreement” in mathematics. If two mathematicians disagree, then one is mistaken. Similarly, if two libertarians disagree, each asserts that the other is either operating from a false assumption or has a flaw in his logic. I think nonlibertarians are really turned off by this, particularly because it comes across as obnoxious and egotistical. But libertarians seem to thrive on it. The community has a kind of intellectual-warrior ethos.
 
The community has a kind of intellectual-warrior ethos.

"And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us."

-Ludwig von Mises, Socialism

word.
 
Last edited:
This might even be better than the last video. Please don't forget to share it if you appreciate it!

Great work Adam, +rep for you!

And I must say, these three posts sum up my thoughts as well:

looks like cointelpro had their mitts in the oven on that one! Nice job exposing them Adam!!

I wonder who payed them to be there and say those things. Looks staged.

My raydar says Poindexter is on someones bankroll. The only other times Ive heard that much conviction of stupid is from the likes of Neocon talking heads and Union leaders.

That blonde douchebag smells of astroturf. I may be wrong, but I would swear on a stack of silver dimes that he is a Democratic Party operative of some sort. His answers came off as too well rehearsed and too stupid to be anything but on someone's payroll and there for spreading misinformation.
 
Was being gay a requirement to join this particular small band of protestors? Not a very diverse group...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top