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

[Travlyr]

I just really do not get why you cover your eyes and ears when videos come up where he labels himself a "voluntaryist." It really, really makes no sense to me. You say let Ron speak for himself, and when he does...somehow you think it's someone else's voice...hopeless.

Ron Paul talks about using the rule of law to achieve a relatively voluntary society. He is in his own words "The Champion of the Constitution." That concept is very important for voters because many voters work for the state while millions more own property through the authority of the state. Do you somehow think they will vote for a guy that wants to eliminate it?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

That concept is very important for voters because many voters work for the state while millions more own property through the authority of the state. Do you somehow think they will vote for a guy that wants to eliminate it?

Loaded question much?

 

[Lothario]

These are Ron's very own words Travlyr.

What agenda do these words imply?

NO! that's out of context!


well what about: "I think voluntary interaction, no matter what the problem is, without force is the best way to go."

NOoo! Let Ron speak for himself better. That's out of context too!

 

[jtstellar]

stefbot answers some of the demands from occupy movement

 

[Lothario]

Ron Paul talks about using the rule of law to achieve a relatively voluntary society. He is in his own words "The Champion of the Constitution." That concept is very important for voters because many voters work for the state while millions more own property through the authority of the state. Do you somehow think they will vote for a guy that wants to eliminate it?

No, he is not trying to eliminate it...

Again, his ideal society is voluntary with no state...that's not what he's campaigning for...he is only campaigning to shrink the state to give us a "relative voluntary society." The two are not mutually exclusive. Can you not see how that makes rational sense?? see below:

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."

 

[noneedtoaggress]

he is trying to get us to a "relative voluntary society."

No he is trying to get us to "true liberty" which is defined as competing currencies and the Constitution, as I have interpreted from his other writings.

He wouldn't ever distract anyone from "true liberty" with fanciful ideas like those awful confused anarchists do. He's the self-proclaimed "Champion of the Constitution" (who sometimes fundamentally criticizes it, but we'll just ignore that part because it's blasphemy).

 

[Travlyr]

Pillars of Prosperity

Read "Pillars of Prosperity" by Ron Paul

FREE MARKETS, HONEST MONEY, PRIVATE PROPERTY

The Economics of a Free Society
These selections lay out my views of the proper role of government, namely that it should serve only to protect the life and property of its citizens. I respect the Constitution not because of a nostalgic attachment to an anachronistic document, but because the Founders knew the danger in allowing government to overstep its legitimate functions. It is unfortunate that many Americans today don’t understand the Founders’ wisdom in framing our government on the principles of federalism and republicanism—as opposed to “democracy.” A free society can only work when its members agree that there are certain things left to the discretion of individuals—no matter what a temporary majority might think. In practice this means the government must respect private property and the rule of law, or what is also called free market capitalism.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I deal effectively and audaciously with posters on threads who think they can just stroll over folks, misquote RP for their propagandized line of BS, or stealthily introduce topics in forums where those topics are prohibited due to forum rules and this being primary campaign season, which alot of your backslappers contingent could give two flying fux about. As for your redundantly overwrought and repetitive arguments. I have answered them in other threads and do not feel the need to reiterate them over and over whenever your propaganda pops its weary head up. My role here since almost the first week was to deal humorously with trolls, later to be a grassroots whip and sargeant-at-arms. Don't like it? Chew on it. Stop fuxing with folks and the board and I won't come around and take potshots at your gambits for the elucidation of the readers. Travlyr has attempted to have appropriate discussions with your bunch and you just potshot him and fall back to accusatory mode. Now yer gonna whine about me not scraping and bowing beneath your underhanded tactics. My heart pumps dirty dishwater for ya.

Firing Range Instructor
Rev9

 

[Lothario]

Read "Pillars of Prosperity" by Ron Paul

FREE MARKETS, HONEST MONEY, PRIVATE PROPERTY

So based on your interpretation, would you then say that this directly contradicts what Ron Paul said when he claimed: "So voluntary use of information and persuading people I think is the best way to go, no matter what kind of problem you're looking at"?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Read "Pillars of Prosperity" by Ron Paul

FREE MARKETS, HONEST MONEY, PRIVATE PROPERTY

There's nothing in there that I wouldn't agree with. If we must live under a government, I fully agree with that role and a return to constitutional principles.

 

[ClayTrainor]

stefbot answers some of the demands from occupy movement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6Z5Yb7Pjqk&feature=feedu

Here's Tom woods and Stefan taking on wall st and the protests.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

In practice this means the government must respect private property and the rule of law, or what is also called free market capitalism.

Travylr do you interpret this line as this:

free market capitalism = when the government respects private property and the rule of law.

or this:

free market capitalism = private property and the rule of law (which the government, in it's intended role, must respect for the individuals within society to be free).

 

[Travlyr]

Travlyr do you interpret this line as this:

free market capitalism = when the government respects private property and the rule of law.

or this:

free market capitalism = private property and the rule of law (which the government, in it's intended role, must respect for the individuals within society to be free).

There is no need for interpretation. Ron Paul is quite clear:

The Economics of a Free Society
These selections lay out my views of the proper role of government, namely that it should serve only to protect the life and property of its citizens. I respect the Constitution not because of a nostalgic attachment to an anachronistic document, but because the Founders knew the danger in allowing government to overstep its legitimate functions. It is unfortunate that many Americans today don’t understand the Founders’ wisdom in framing our government on the principles of federalism and republicanism—as opposed to “democracy.” A free society can only work when its members agree that there are certain things left to the discretion of individuals—no matter what a temporary majority might think. In practice this means the government must respect private property and the rule of law, or what is also called free market capitalism.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

What? Is that supposed to support your position?

"The only valid context to put this in is the one I hold, because the alternative is blasphemous. Therefore the fact that my conclusion is the valid one should be obvious."

I can just as easily read this in a voluntaryist context and agree with what it says. Words are important, and Ron tends to choose his pretty carefully.

 

[jtstellar]

embedding the video this time.. don't miss it.. goes over some econ 101 with occupy wall street loyalists

Here's Tom woods and Stefan taking on wall st and the protests.

yes watched that too. i think they should have invited a guest on the opposite side to debate. granted he might be driven off the camera with steam coming off his head 3 minutes after shoot, but it sort of felt like lots of intelligence and lots of fire between the two of them with no place to go.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

In the post above I am implying 2 things...

1. Ron Pauls tie is awesome.

2. He flat-out mocked the statist quo when he responded to the heroin question.

Which one is false and can not be backed up in any way?

I said you suggested it implicitly, not outright stated it. I said that for a reason because I know that you didn't actually say those things. However, telling us that Ron's tie was meaningful suggests that he chose it for the reason that it represented what you think it represents.

The whole tone of the post was to get people to think that Ron's beliefs are somehow in line with ancap beliefs, whcih there is really no grounds to suggest. You just have to color him in that light, since it twists reality in your favor, giving your views more credibility, since you have to believe that anyone who is logically and morally consistent would unequivocally reject the state, which is really not the case. I'm not arguing with what you said, but there was really no reason to create that post, other than to implicitly suggest that Ron Paul agrees with you.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

NO! that's out of context!


well what about: "I think voluntary interaction, no matter what the problem is, without force is the best way to go."

NOoo! Let Ron speak for himself better. That's out of context too!

I think it's the best way to go, too, but that doesn't imply that I won't use it when necessary or unavoidable. This in no way suggests that Ron Paul is against all forms of the state, just that he thinks pure voluntary action is "the best way to go." However, it is a fact that he has embraced a view that allows systems that are already in place to exist until they are phased out, which suggests he doesn't follow the sort of "moral" absolutism that you ancaps like to claim.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

However, it is a fact that he has embraced a view that allows systems that are already in place to exist until they are phased out, which suggests he doesn't follow the sort of "moral" absolutism that you ancaps like to claim.

I think you've already displayed that you have no idea what it is that ancaps claim.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

There's nothing in there that I wouldn't agree with. If we must live under a government, I fully agree with that role and a return to constitutional principles.

There you go. You must live under a government because there is simply no other way. It is inevitable, so you might as well be a minarchist who likes pie in the sky.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Somehow I'm not so convinced.