When RPF's was born...

[Natural Citizen]

I'd have to see the face before giving that the POW face.

Dang. That's what I'm sayin.

 

[thoughtomator]

What a completely ridiculous thing to say. If I ran this place I would have you banned, because you just seem like a troll.

Then you'd be for banning Ron Paul himself. Which is no surprise to see on this forum given how radically different it has become from his vision.



He specifically calls out the anarchists for being unrealistic, that their ideas require human beings to be perfect, which is something that will never happen. It's the exact same argument that I've been consistently making here all these years... I suppose it's because I'm one of the few who actually listened to him?

It's a gradual step, and it might honestly be the ONLY step we have to getting an anarcho capitalist society.

That's the heart of the matter.

There are two paths from here to liberty. One requires the complete destruction of civilization. The other merely requires adhering to existing law.

I'll be damned if there aren't way too many people here who consider only the first path to be acceptable.

 

[fisharmor]

The anarchists took over, drove out most of the libertarians, gradually converted the dominant philosophy from the one espoused by Ron Paul to something very very very very different.

The "anarchists" don't own this forum. The "anarchists" didn't drive anyone out.
What happened is, you and yours can't respond to the arguments put forth by "anarchists".
If you believe in the truth of your position, then argue for it. Present the truth of your position, deal with rebuttals, and if your position is better, then your position will become the dominant position here.

If you just bitch about how things aren't the way they used to be, and refuse to examine the facts on the ground, then you're gonna lose. That's the way life works. That's what we market-oriented folks are supposed to be advocating. You compete, or you lose. There is a marketplace of ideas here, and your ideas aren't finding buyers. It's not the "anarchists" job to be silent so your position looks better.

In order for that to happen - particularly the rebuttal part - you're going to have to LISTEN. And since your post insinuates that you don't believe "anarchists" are libertarians, and since you believe "anarchists" believe something very very very very (four verys) different from Ron Paul's position, that tells me you have a lot to improve on the listening front.

 

[fisharmor]

The other merely requires adhering to existing law.

The existing law presumes that law is primarily a method by which the citizenry is punished for breaking the commands of the state.
I have no interest in that way because that notion it is diametrically opposed to liberty.

 

[thoughtomator]

The existing law presumes that law is primarily a method by which the citizenry is punished for breaking the commands of the state.
I have no interest in that way because that notion it is diametrically opposed to liberty.

I'm talking about legitimate law, not the unlawful mess if anti-Constitutional legislation that the government has become today.

At the federal level, legitimate law is the Constitution and those laws authorized by it... full stop.

All we have to do is simply go back to the Rule of Law, it is that simple. 99% of the federal government disappears if we do.


To head off an anticipated response... I don't buy this "the Constitution failed" stuff. The Constitution didn't fail. The people failed. That part does not need to continue, and it can change overnight the moment the will is there to restore it.

That's sort of what was supposed to be going on here... restoring the Constitution.

On an average post-weighted volume, even at RPF there is no will to restore the Constitution; the general will at this site wants the Constitution destroyed.

If the disciples of Ron Paul himself cannot rally to the cause of restoring the Constitution... that is incredibly sad. Heartbreaking sad.

But it's not the end of my efforts to restore the Constitution. I find allies all over the place to that end, elsewhere. That's how we engineered Cantor out of his seat to replace him with a top 5 liberty oriented member of Congress, with almost no libertarian participation other than myself. To achieve that victory we needed a coalition of Republicans, conservatives, independents, and even Democrats.

How ironic that when that battle for liberty was joined, alleged libertarians weren't even on the field!

By their fruits shall ye know them; and the fruits of the liberty movement, I'm afraid, looks a lot like a lot of good people's time was completely wasted.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'd have to see the face before giving that the POW face. Although, I can understand a sailor automatically not liking that.

Butter face?

Who cares...besides, that outfit is hawt too.

High heel suede, leg warmers, denim skirt and a Christmas sweater?

Rawr.

Wish I get Mrs. AF dressed up like that.

 

[fisharmor]

All we have to do is simply go back to the Rule of Law

Stop trying to anticipate what I'm going to write.
Nothing you wrote addresses my central point: that law under our current system is a means by which people are punished for disobeying the state.
The US Constitution does absolutely nothing to alter this principle.

 

[thoughtomator]

Stop trying to anticipate what I'm going to write.
Nothing you wrote addresses my central point: that law under our current system is a means by which people are punished for disobeying the state.
The US Constitution does absolutely nothing to alter this principle.

The law under our current system is in direct defiance of the limits placed on it by the Constitution in so many ways it is impossible to list them all.

If it is restored, all valid aspects of the complaint will be satisfied.

 

[fisharmor]

The law under our current system is in direct defiance of the limits placed on it by the Constitution in so many ways it is impossible to list them all.

If it is restored, all valid aspects of the complaint will be satisfied.

At no point in US history, even under the Articles of Confederation, has law ever been anything other than what I wrote.

But I see your game now: you insinuate that part - or possibly all - of "the complaint" is invalid.

You talk a fine game of anticipating what we're going to write, but I've had you cornered since my first post in this thread. All you offer is platitudes and assurances that my argument is either invalid, nonsensical, or not rooted in the real world.

The plain fact here is that you simply will not take the time to understand what you are arguing against.

That is how "anarchists took over". We had nothing to do with it besides offering our views. If you want the site back, you have to take it. And simply dismissing the argument isn't going to work.

 

[CCTelander]

At no point in US history, even under the Articles of Confederation, has law ever been anything other than what I wrote.

But I see your game now: you insinuate that part - or possibly all - of "the complaint" is invalid.

You talk a fine game of anticipating what we're going to write, but I've had you cornered since my first post in this thread. All you offer is platitudes and assurances that my argument is either invalid, nonsensical, or not rooted in the real world.

The plain fact here is that you simply will not take the time to understand what you are arguing against.

That is how "anarchists took over". We had nothing to do with it besides offering our views. If you want the site back, you have to take it. And simply dismissing the argument isn't going to work.

But that might take actual effort. Too damned hard. Instead, the plan seems to be to bitch and complain loud enough that admin purges all us nasty, good for nothing anarchists.

Like I said elsewhere, nothing says "Liberty!" like a good, old-fashioned purge.

Burn the witches!

 

[Origanalist]

Maybe we should all take a day and examine our navels.

 

[undergroundrr]

Decuck yourselves. RPF is about:

Shutting down the SJW's.
Building the border wall.
Deporting the illegals.
Putting SWC Hillary in jail.

 

[The Gold Standard]

To chime in about getting back to the Constitution, first of all, I would vote for someone who wanted to do that, but that isn't the issue here. I've spent plenty of time debating this topic with people, and using the Constitution as my justification leaves me at a disadvantage, because you can look at it in a way that many of the things we oppose can be considered Constitutional.

The 14th amendment is a nightmare for people trying to claim that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control what states do.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

If the federal government deems something a "privilege of citizens of the United States", Congress has the power to stop a state from denying that privilege. Social Security? Health care? Clean air? That's how they justify it, and I have no leg to stand on. And that doesn't even mention the general welfare or commerce clauses that we all know about.

It's hard to argue to "get back to the Constitution" when the reality is so muddled because of a poorly written and horribly amended document. Some of us go to the moral arguments, but when you do that you end up at anarchy, not constitutionalism.

 

[undergroundrr]

For me, the biggest difference is foreign policy and war sentiment. I think most here had a tendency to be passionately anti-interventionist in the past. Ron vs. Rudy was the defining moment. For me personally, that exchange helped to align an innate impulse for peace with conservativism.

trump supporters will half-heartedly tell you he seems more anti-war than, say, Hillary. But they don't seem to care whether or not he is. It's incidental and somewhat conditional. The fear of illegals is primary, and it sounds identical to the fear of terrorists that was prevalent back in 2008. Tom Tancredo was way ahead of the curve.

I think the forum is now slanted against those for whom ending war was top priority. I'm a one-issue voter about it. But I'm feeling like part of a small minority these days. Today in other threads, I'm trying to find out whether Bannon (who is praised by a majority of current RPF'ers) is anti-war. Nobody seems to know or care. On another thread, one of the top posters of recent months is arguing for the draft. There are shockingly few voices being raised against his argument.

 

[otherone]

It's hard to argue to "get back to the Constitution" when the reality is so muddled because of a poorly written and horribly amended document. Some of us go to the moral arguments, but when you do that you end up at anarchy, not constitutionalism.

What the revisionist constitutionalists don't understand is that "getting back to" the constitution requires CHANGING the constitution.
Irony.

 

[Unknownuser]

Because "we" are small in numbers. However, I do find it odd that in the midst of a Liberty movement that seemed to be gaining steam...an alt right movement was born and the leader is now president.

 

[wizardwatson]

Maybe we should all take a day and examine our navels.

That or Trumps navel. We don't have a lot of range these days.

 

[Jesse James]

For me, the biggest difference is foreign policy and war sentiment. I think most here had a tendency to be passionately anti-interventionist in the past. Ron vs. Rudy was the defining moment. For me personally, that exchange helped to align an innate impulse for peace with conservativism.

trump supporters will half-heartedly tell you he seems more anti-war than, say, Hillary. But they don't seem to care whether or not he is. It's incidental and somewhat conditional. The fear of illegals is primary, and it sounds identical to the fear of terrorists that was prevalent back in 2008. Tom Tancredo was way ahead of the curve.

I think the forum is now slanted against those for whom ending war was top priority. I'm a one-issue voter about it. But I'm feeling like part of a small minority these days. Today in other threads, I'm trying to find out whether Bannon (who is praised by a majority of current RPF'ers) is anti-war. Nobody seems to know or care. On another thread, one of the top posters of recent months is arguing for the draft. There are shockingly few voices being raised against his argument.

we
should hang out more.

 

[Jesse James]

Because "we" are small in numbers. However, I do find it odd that in the midst of a Liberty movement that seemed to be gaining steam...an alt right movement was born and the leader is now president.

if he didn't run for president he never would have become the leader

 

[undergroundrr]

if he didn't run for president he never would have become the leader

And I'm unconvinced that the alt-right emerged from the liberty movement.