Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

Listen Conza.....

The great thing about Ron Paul is that he has taken elements of ideas from many different quarters of the world.

He has taken input from natural law atheists like Rothbard and Mises.
He has taken input from Scripture-alone Calvinists, from Calvin and Luther to John Robbins and Gary North.
He has taken input from Catholics, from classical to modern, from Bastiat to Tom Woods.
He has taken input from Christian Austrian economists like Hans Sennholz and Tom Rose.
He has taken input from voluntaryists, anarchists, and Constitutionalists.
He has taken input from the social compact naturalist Founders.
He has taken input from the Covenantalist Puritans.
He has taken input from ancient Calvinists, like Augustine.
He bas taken input from ancient Catholics like Aquinas.

There are tons of influences I'm missing off the top of my head. The point is: its great that we can all find something in Dr. Paul that brings us together. It's all about liberty and freedom man.
 
Last edited:
Listen Conza.....

The great thing about Ron Paul is that he has taken elements of ideas from many different quarters of the world.

He has taken input from natural law atheists like Rothbard and Mises.

Religion is completely irrelevant to political philosophy. A point made by Rothbard, in the exact place you said Ron Paul was influenced by:

Rothbard on Natural Law said:
“The believer in a rationally established natural law must, then, face the hostility of both camps: the one group sensing in this position an antagonism toward religion; and the other group suspecting that God and mysticism are being slipped in by the back door.

To the first group, it must be said that they are reflecting an extreme Augustinian position which held that faith rather than reason was the only legitimate tool for investigating man’s nature and man’s proper ends. In short, in this fideist tradition, theology had completely displaced philosophy.[3] The Thomist tradition, on the contrary, was precisely the opposite: vindicating the independence of philosophy from theology, and proclaiming the ability of man’s reason to understand and arrive at the laws, physical and ethical, of the natural order, if belief in a systematic order of natural laws open to discovery by man’s reason is per se anti-religious, then anti-religious also were St. Thomas and the later Scholastics, as well as the devout Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius.

The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order; and the assertion of the viability of man’s reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious.[4]”​

Which Ron Paul goes on to confirm:

Ron Paul: "So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.'"

So lmao to your entire list of 'influences'. Greaaaaaaaaaaaat. :rolleyes:

The fact that Mises and Rothbard were atheists is irrelevant. Mises also, didn't support natural law. Shows your ignorance, yet again.
 
Last edited:
Religion is completely irrelevant to political philosophy. A point made by Rothbard, in the exact place you said Ron Paul was influenced by:



Which Ron Paul goes on to confirm:

Ron Paul: "So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.'"

So lmao to your entire list of 'influences'. Greaaaaaaaaaaaat. :rolleyes:


You live in a fantasy land. You have deceived yourself into thinking that you are some neutral moral entity out in the world....but you are a whitewashed tomb full of dead men's bones. You are doomed to destruction and you think your fine and dandy.

Oh, it has everything to do with religion. Your religion of empiricism is fallacious. You can't justify why you believe anything. Your worldview makes you illogical. You worship your own will when you know deep down that God is sovereign. Like the Johnny Cash song says, "sooner or later God's gonna cut you down".

Edit: yes, I meant to say in my first sentence "natural law and anti natural law lawyers". You got me bro. Good job. It's just deflecting. I can destroy your worldview but you run from it every time I engage you.
 
Last edited:
Religion is completely irrelevant to political philosophy. A point made by Rothbard, in the exact place you said Ron Paul was influenced by:



Which Ron Paul goes on to confirm:

Ron Paul: "So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.'"

So lmao to your entire list of 'influences'. Greaaaaaaaaaaaat. :rolleyes:

The fact that Mises and Rothbard were atheists is irrelevant. Mises also, didn't support natural law. Shows your ignorance, yet again.

Your Rothbard quote was ridiculous. John Robbins already destroyed the entire theory of natural law decades ago. You should check in to it.
 
How To End The Fed Now.

Excerpt,
The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. “A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations”: 50 Am.Jur.: 12 p 28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur.: 33. pg. 58, 59.
The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 US 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).
A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.

Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law “relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large.” It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 158 US 601 (1895), the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment.
Why advocate for private law and an end to the Constitution along with the 'Bill of Rights'? That's not freedom.
 
Last edited:
How To End The Fed Now.

Excerpt,

Why advocate for private law and an end to the Constitution along with the 'Bill of Rights'? That's not freedom.

"Compared to" arguments, 101 of philosophy... go educate yourself... and keep on ignoring Ron Paul's statements on self-government as being his END GOAL.

In the mean time, as transition - I, like him, support reducing and limiting the size of government. Every private law / voluntarist / self-government / anarcho-capitalist supporter WOULD SUPPORT a return to the size of government outlined in the US Constitution COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW (even though, it'd just grow again).

If it was a decision between the Articles on Confederation and the US Constitution; RON PAUL HAS SAID HE'D PROBABLY BE AN ANTI-FEDERALIST.

I mean WHAT the F$())# how can you call yourself a Ron Paul supporter if you're so braindeadly not switched on to the nuances he is operating under, ffs.
 
Your Rothbard quote was ridiculous. John Robbins already destroyed the entire theory of natural law decades ago. You should check in to it.

Pathetic dismissal, followed up with a vague assertion backed by nothing... whilst failing to address the points that BLOW your bs out of the water.

*claps* *outstanding* :rolleyes:
 
You live in a fantasy land. You have deceived yourself into thinking that you are some neutral moral entity out in the world....but you are a whitewashed tomb full of dead men's bones. You are doomed to destruction and you think your fine and dandy.

Oh, it has everything to do with religion. Your religion of empiricism is fallacious. You can't justify why you believe anything. Your worldview makes you illogical. You worship your own will when you know deep down that God is sovereign. Like the Johnny Cash song says, "sooner or later God's gonna cut you down".

Edit: yes, I meant to say in my first sentence "natural law and anti natural law lawyers". You got me bro. Good job. It's just deflecting. I can destroy your worldview but you run from it every time I engage you.

Libertarianism isn't a worldview... it's a political philosophy.

Mate, keep opening your mouth and keep putting your foot in it. Hilarious. Nothing but:

MORE IGNORANCE lmao... :D

Rothbard schooling statist fools who call themselves supporters of liberty said:
Libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. . . . Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.

- Myth and Truth About Libertarianism
 
Last edited:
"Compared to" arguments, 101 of philosophy... go educate yourself... and keep on ignoring Ron Paul's statements on self-government as being his END GOAL.

In the mean time, as transition - I, like him, support reducing and limiting the size of government. Every private law / voluntarist / self-government / anarcho-capitalist supporter WOULD SUPPORT a return to the size of government outlined in the US Constitution COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW (even though, it'd just grow again).

If it was a decision between the Articles on Confederation and the US Constitution; RON PAUL HAS SAID HE'D PROBABLY BE AN ANTI-FEDERALIST.

I mean WHAT the F$())# how can you call yourself a Ron Paul supporter if you're so braindeadly not switched on to the nuances he is operating under, ffs.
Because I don't live in Conza's lala land. We do not live in a perfectly ideal world.

Ron Paul on Self-Government
At a huge rally in Seattle: “If you had a perfectly ideal world, and you had liberty passed on back to the individual, it would be self-government, that would be the ultimate test. As long as we accept one principle - that we don’t force other people to try to live the way we want to live. Stay out of meddling with these peoples lives.”
Self-government being synonymous with voluntarism and a private law society.

Private Law sucks the big one. The Federal Reserve System and the IRS are private law. Ignoring the 'Bill of Rights' and the Constitution sucks. That is what we have NOW. Private law and ignoring the rule of law is today's reality. It sucks. And you keep bringing it up over and over again like it is some sort of salvation. Well, look outside dude, it sucks. It is getting a lot of people killed and impoverished around the world. Get a clue. Enforcing the rule of law and stopping the lawlessness brings freedom.
 
Because I don't live in Conza's lala land. We do not live in a perfectly ideal world.

Maybe not Conza's...

Ron Paul said:
Private Statist Monopoly Law sucks the big one. The Federal Reserve System and the IRS are involuntary private law supported by the state. Ignoring the 'Bill of Rights' and the Constitution sucks but agents of the state act within the interest of the state paradigm and don't care about limiting their power. That is what we have NOW. Private Statist monopoly edicts touted as law and ignoring the rule of natural law is today's reality. It sucks. And you keep bringing it up over and over again like it is some sort of salvation. Well, look outside dude, it the state sucks. It Statism is getting a lot of people killed and impoverished around the world. Get a clue. Enforcing the rule of natural law and stopping the lawlessness of statist edicts brings freedom.

fixed it 4 u.

Ron Paul said:
To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state Land Laws™ does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation.

Hmm... nope still doesn't make sense...

Ron Paul said:
Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives. Only this path leads to the unleashing of human energies that build civilizations, provide security, generate wealth, and protect the people from systematic rights violations.

Hmm...

Ron Paul said:
Taxation is theft.

Hmm...
 
Last edited:
heretic_ii_frontcover_large_eO0evXWqUaIigvL.jpg
 
Libertarianism isn't a worldview... it's a political philosophy.

Mate, keep opening your mouth and keep putting your foot in it. Hilarious. Nothing but:

MORE IGNORANCE lmao... :D
Interesting that Rothbard wrote this as well as Ethics Of Liberty. I don't think your quote is something Murray would say later in his career. Even Kinsella agrees that libertarianism is not "value-free" as you are trying to portray it. http://mises.org/daily/3660 It seems you are confusing libertarian economic theory (which is value-free) with libertarianism in general.
 
Libertarianism isn't a worldview... it's a political philosophy.

Mate, keep opening your mouth and keep putting your foot in it. Hilarious. Nothing but:

MORE IGNORANCE lmao... :D


Where did I say anything about libertarianism in my post, genius?

I said empiricism, I didn't say anything about libertarianism.
 
Oh no, I got revenge rep'd by conza88! What will I do? Conza, just to catch you up, personally attacking someone in the rep system is on the same level as personally attacking that person in the thread. So you may as well get the most bang for you buck and personally attack me in the thread you commented on.

It is interesting that while my comments were directed towards my observations of you, you can not claim ad hominem because what I have observed about your motives, hypocrisy, conduct, and character certainly speak to your argument of claiming to have the complete story on where Ron Paul's ideas come from.

I am treating you gently here Conza. I want you to know that while I agree that you have identified an area of influence concerning Ron Paul's ideas, you are far from realizing the truth about who Ron Paul is. You are especially far from being someone to speak for Ron Paul, as you continuously either ignore much of what the man says or conveniently spin and weave his words in such a way that distorts what the man is doing and what the man represents.

You won't accept that. You want to cling to the belief that you have somehow tapped in to the very spigot where Ron Paul intellectually drinks from and deny that his intellectual philosophy may come from various sources. You dismiss those other sources in a way that represents Ron Paul and his ideas as a paradox or outright fraud. Of course in your mind, its easy to solve the paradox and deny the fraud, because in fact it is you, Conza, that have created that paradox and perpetuated that fraud of misrepresentation. Others, including myself, point out the flaws in your contrivance and you attack attack attack. The reality is, your futile defense of your distorted understanding of who Ron Paul is has garnered you some fractional level of support to those who are interested in your core issue, but as a whole, your efforts only make the small cracks in Ron Paul support seem like huge unbridgeable canyons.

You and the conclusions you draw and foist upon the community of Ron Paul support could not be further from the truth.
 
You live in a fantasy land. You have deceived yourself into thinking that you are some neutral moral entity out in the world....but you are a whitewashed tomb full of dead men's bones. You are doomed to destruction and you think your fine and dandy.

Oh, it has everything to do with religion. Your religion of empiricism is fallacious. You can't justify why you believe anything. Your worldview makes you illogical. You worship your own will when you know deep down that God is sovereign. Like the Johnny Cash song says, "sooner or later God's gonna cut you down".

Edit: yes, I meant to say in my first sentence "natural law and anti natural law lawyers". You got me bro. Good job. It's just deflecting. I can destroy your worldview but you run from it every time I engage you.

God complex much? Your "destruction" requires someone to fully accept your 'interpretation' and 'faith' in order to hold. Your argument is essentially "They sky is not blue it is purple." To which we reply, no it is clearly blue. Your response is "If only you would accept that it is clearly purple, as I do, then you would so how thoroughly I have destroyed you."

:rolleyes:
 
Ron Paul's ideas come from the same place Gary Johnson's do. For starters, they are just plain common sense. The foundations of our concept of liberty dates back in history and cannot be attributed to one man, but the ruination of our liberties can closely be attributed to Obama. Gary Johnson supported Ron Paul in 2008 and come May, we will look to Ron Paul to throw his support to
Gary Johnson and keep the Libertarian torch held high.
 
Ron Paul's ideas come from the same place Gary Johnson's do. For starters, they are just plain common sense. The foundations of our concept of liberty dates back in history and cannot be attributed to one man, but the ruination of our liberties can closely be attributed to Obama. Gary Johnson supported Ron Paul in 2008 and come May, we will look to Ron Paul to throw his support to
Gary Johnson and keep the Libertarian torch held high.

1. You have to have some SERIOUS hatred blinders on to even consider saying something so ridiculous as "the ruination of our liberties can closely be attributed to Obama." To be sure, Obama is no friend of liberty, but he is merely the latest in a centuries old game of the ruination of liberty. He is no more (or less) to be blamed than George W., Billy C., George H.W., RWR, Carter...you see where this is going.

2. GJ has a loooooong way to go to be even in the same galaxy as RP on liberty.
 
Back
Top