Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

[Conza88]

Self-government doesn't require a philosophy like voluntarism for it to work. The two are not equal because both represent distinctly different ideas.

Full of $hit as always.

Ron Paul: "that we don’t force other people to try to live the way we want to live." (From above).

That includes forcing them into your system, champ.

​

ADAM KOKESH: So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

ADAM KOKESH: Do you think we have a change of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?

RON PAUL: Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can't do.​

Soooo different... lmao. Elucidate away.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Much more common? Or everywhere?

How do you define prosperity? Were blacks and women better off politically and socially in 1913?

Getting rid of the Fed doesn't mean one is traveling back in time to 1912.

 

[newbitech]

Full of $hit as always.

Ron Paul: "that we don’t force other people to try to live the way we want to live." (From above).

That includes forcing them into your system, champ.

​

ADAM KOKESH: So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

ADAM KOKESH: Do you think we have a change of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?

RON PAUL: Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can't do.​

Soooo different... lmao. Elucidate away.

So since Adam Kokesh put words in to Ron Paul's mouth, it's ok if you do it?

 

[Wesker1982]

So since Adam Kokesh put words in to Ron Paul's mouth, it's ok if you do it?

Ron then goes on to perfectly describe Voluntaryism, then explicitly advocate it.

Explains the philosophy:

1. Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you.

Advocates the philosophy just explained:

2. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

 

[Wesker1982]

FYI, you guys still trying to deny the obvious are just convincing more people of the truth (Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist) by keeping this thread bumped.

Last post by Conza before the bump 2-14, then a denier, PaulConventionWV made a post 3-8. Futile attempts to deny Ron Paul's true philosophy are only confirming it to people who aren't afraid of the truth.

 

[Travlyr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q3SOlXxUBLk

While monetary policy is the key to individual secession, listen to Ron Paul starting at 7:45. Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

FYI, you guys still trying to deny the obvious are just convincing more people of the truth (Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist) by keeping this thread bumped.

Last post by Conza before the bump 2-14, then a denier, PaulConventionWV made a post 3-8. Futile attempts to deny Ron Paul's true philosophy are only confirming it to people who aren't afraid of the truth.

I think "closet Voluntaryist" is a better term for now. He has, after all, explicitly said-"government is the enemy of liberty"-but uses the more palletable constitutionalist rhetoric before republican audiences.

 

[Conza88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q3SOlXxUBLk

While monetary policy is the key to individual secession, listen to Ron Paul starting at 7:45. Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society.

Nowhere at all in the segment does his say anything close to this: "Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society."

Yeah, operating within the statist context attempting to limit the state is better than not at all. Moving in the direction of smaller government (time to zero) is fine and legit.

Good try bro, but it's an epic fail. I actually use Ron Paul's words, unlike others.

​

Ron Paul is on the freedom train to the end of the line... just like I am, as is Rothbard... and other supporters of self-government, individual secession, voluntarism, libertarianism.

You get off before the end, for whatever delusional and ignorant reason. Until you get off, you're a fellow traveler. But you guys act as if I'm the enemy, pathetic.

 

[onlyrp]

Getting rid of the Fed doesn't mean one is traveling back in time to 1912.

It might mean many things will be unfunded and mass deflation of credit by today's standards.

 

[Travlyr]

It might mean many things will be unfunded and mass deflation of credit by today's standards.

Right. Wars will be unfunded and the debt will be repudiated.

 

[onlyrp]

Right. Wars will be unfunded and the debt will be repudiated.

Don't stop there, schools, scientific research, close to half of colleges' worthless majors and departments, the loan industry, the housing market, much of the entertainment industry, credit cards will shrink, advertising will decrease meaning media will be underfunded, news media will degrade along with entertainment. I'm not sure debt will be repudiated right away, but it'll stop piling up. Be careful what you wish for, unless you are somebody who owns your own business, you will likely be affected directly or indirectly (I'm happy to see it, but I'm not sure how many Americans would take it nicely).

If you like Detroit, you're going to love this country when the federal reserve is gone. Detroit is what a city looks like when it depends on an industry which depends on credit or inflated currency to survive, so when money dies, demand dies, competition kills, the city dies. You might not get 1912, or Detroit, but you'll start to see cellphones and internets as luxury items.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I don't want to de-rail this thread, but... What exactly are you trying to say? Are you opposed to ending the Federal Reserve? Do you think those of us who do want to end it don't understand the consequences?

 

[Travlyr]

Nowhere at all in the segment does his say anything close to this: "Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society."

Yeah, operating within the statist context attempting to limit the state is better than not at all. Moving in the direction of smaller government (time to zero) is fine and legit.

Good try bro, but it's an epic fail. I actually use Ron Paul's words, unlike others.

​

Ron Paul is on the freedom train to the end of the line... just like I am, as is Rothbard... and other supporters of self-government, individual secession, voluntarism, libertarianism.

You get off before the end, for whatever delusional and ignorant reason. Until you get off, you're a fellow traveler. But you guys act as if I'm the enemy, pathetic.

I agree, Ron Paul doesn't directly say that obeying the constitution is the key to a voluntary society. That is my claim. However, Ron Paul does state in his writings that sound money, fully redeemable is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity, and everyone who believes in freedom should be working diligently for it. He goes on to say that the constitution defines gold and silver as legal tender and that by obeying the constitution, the law of the land, that we'll find solutions to many of the problems we experience today. I agree that obeying the constitution is not where the freedom train stops, but it is certainly where it starts. Your incessant rejection of using the constitution as a guide for the freedom train makes you sound like an enemy.

 

[Conza88]

I agree, Ron Paul doesn't directly say that obeying the constitution is the key to a voluntary society. That is my claim.

Thank you for conceding your claim is fallacious and based on nothing at all substantive.

However, Ron Paul does state in his writings that sound money, fully redeemable is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity, and everyone who believes in freedom should be working diligently for it. He goes on to say that the constitution defines gold and silver as legal tender and that by obeying the constitution, the law of the land, that we'll find solutions to many of the problems we experience today.

Putting it back in some ACTUAL context, he's making the argument 'even on their own terms they fail'.

Ron Paul: "If you have a privately minted silver ounce, and you try [to do a] business transaction with that, you can go to jail, you're breaking the law, and yet the constitution says 'gold and silver' are legal tender."

Eventually, too, we must abolish the central government's monopoly of the minting business. Surely the idea that the sovereignty of the king must be expressed through stamping his face on a coin can now be discarded as a relic of a bygone age. There is no reason why private firms cannot mint coins as well, or better, than the national mint. Free competition should come, at long last, to the minting business. The cost would be far cheaper and the quality of the coins much improved.

A Constitutional Amendment
Although we believe that there is actually nothing in the Constitution that legitimizes our present banking and monetary arrangements, the present system has been with us for so long that a constitutional amendment is probably needed to reaffirm what the Constitution says. We propose that the following language become Article 27 to the Constitution:

• Neither Congress nor any state shall make anything a tender in payment of private debts, nor shall they charter any bank or note-issuing institution, and states shall make only gold and silver coins as tender in payment of public taxes, duties, and dues.

Hahah.. Case For Gold, Ron Paul, page 185. Minority Report for US Congress, Rothbard consulted on this . Wow, so good it needs to be amended. Again, nothing at all wrong - given we're talking about now looking back.

I am with Ron Paul. - Pity... you've never actually read Ron Paul's book...

Free Market Money? (Gold, Peace and Prosperity by Ron Paul) pg. 44​

"Perhaps in the future we need to consider free market money, allowing consumers to decide about their money the way they decide about everything else. Hans Sennholz and Friedrich von Hayek argue for this system. And it existed at one time in our country.

In California, during the 1840s and 1850s, many privately minted gold coins circulated. The practice was outlawed in 1864, "but as late as 1914," points out Antony Sutton, "the U.S. Treasury was still trying to halt circulation of private gold pieces in San Francisco." Why were such coins still circulating? Because the private mints maintained higher standards than the government mint. Often, points out Dr. Sutton, they were one percent heavier than Federal issues, "to protect the user from metal loss by abrasion while the coin was in circulation."

Private mints held to a higher standard because they were protected only by their reputation. They could not force consumers to take sub-standard money by the force of law, as government can.

The North financed the Civil War with hundreds of millions of dollars of irredeemable Greenback notes, and as a result, prices more than doubled from 1861 to 1865. During the Greenback inflation, people in California continued to use gold as their money. "In California, as in other states," points out Frank Taussig, "paper was legal tender " that is, people could be forced to accept it. Although there was no antipathy towards the Federal government, people believed strongly in gold. "Every debtor had the legal right to pay off his debts in depreciated paper. But if he did so, he was a marked man (the creditor was likely to post him publicly in the newspapers) and he was virtually boycotted. Throughout the period, paper was not used in California."​

Wow, very good points Ron. Thanks for the great anarcho-capitalist argument

OOPS, that END GOAL rears it's head again ...

I agree that obeying the constitution is not where the freedom train stops, but it is certainly where it starts. Your incessant rejection of using the constitution as a guide for the freedom train makes you sound like an enemy.

See, no. It doesn't start there. The Constitution is quite literally a piece of paper. Are you saying a piece of paper some how grants magical properties? Crackpot. It attempts to embody a set of ideas. You do you know about classical liberalism, right?

​

Natural rights etc. They correctly begin at self-ownership and original appropriation. That's where the freedom train begins. Coming from a prior perspective to its set up, i.e Articles of Confederation:

THE US Constitution WAS AN INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF THE STATE. Yes? Do you AGREE?

In that case it would result in less freedom.

I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander (Spooner). His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it. I think it’s a very interesting philosophic issue, and I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument.

 

[Conza88]

FYI, you guys still trying to deny the obvious are just convincing more people of the truth (Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist) by keeping this thread bumped.

Last post by Conza before the bump 2-14, then a denier, PaulConventionWV made a post 3-8. Futile attempts to deny Ron Paul's true philosophy are only confirming it to people who aren't afraid of the truth.

Dude... they just don't learn. This happens to them CONSTANTLY lol...

The more they argue against it... the greater our case becomes, it's fcken hilarious! For instance, if they had just learnt to stfu.. then myself, you and others wouldn't have felt compelled to seek out the obvious justifications but which have been needles in the haystack.

Have you seen this yet? (prior to above).

“You’re frequently an advocate for the Constitution. What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander (Spooner). His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it. I think it’s a very interesting philosophic issue, and I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument.

There is video footage .

@all - If newbitech, onlyrp or trav [throwing in LE for good measure] stop trolling, I'll leave it at a quote. Otherwise I'm going to gladly edit it, put it up, and post it to 5k people on Ron Paul 2010's twitter feed.

I put forth this ultimatum for the sheer amusement I know you guys will break it. Give me a reason to spread the message of liberty even further; a message Ron glady puts forth, he's smiling in the video, it's as if he loves being asked the question .

I await your inevitable personal attacks. Here he clearly (again) vindicates the points made previously by myself and others!

Given that we have mass statism, there isn't anything wrong with trying to use the constitution and what it represents as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent to help REDUCE the size of government...

Because who now (private law, anarcho-capitalists, libertarians etc.) would say no to returning to the size of government outlined in the US Constitution (obviously understanding that it'd merely grow again)? No-one would.

The point of discussion is what happens when we get there. We're fellow travelers till then when Trav etc., the minarchists and strict constitutionalists get off the FREEDOM TRAIN... and then RON PAUL, SPOONER, ROTHBARD, TOM WOODS, WALTER BLOCK, DOUG CASEY, ADAM KOKESH, ESSENTIALLY ENTIRE LVMI stay on the train along with all the voluntarists, private law, self-government supporters. Toot Toot

The point of Ron Paul is that he sets people down the right path, he starts them on the journey. It's a disservice to him when you get stuck at the starting line.

 

[Travlyr]

Ron Paul - "I am an advocate a very strong advocate of following very strictly the rule of law the Constitution of the United States."

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I agree, Ron Paul doesn't directly say that obeying the constitution is the key to a voluntary society. That is my claim. However, Ron Paul does state in his writings that sound money, fully redeemable is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity, and everyone who believes in freedom should be working diligently for it. He goes on to say that the constitution defines gold and silver as legal tender and that by obeying the constitution, the law of the land, that we'll find solutions to many of the problems we experience today. I agree that obeying the constitution is not where the freedom train stops, but it is certainly where it starts. Your incessant rejection of using the constitution as a guide for the freedom train makes you sound like an enemy.

Trav... you do realize that this is all your own perception, right? We don't reject "the constitution as a guide for the freedom train", there's already plenty of people arguing for that. Even politicians give the constitution lip service.

You're the one making us out to be "the enemy". Do you think Ron Paul thinks "we sound like the enemy"? I'm willing to bet that he does not considering the arguments he's ultimately making, himself. Where do you think most of us found out about this? But to you, we're "invading" Ron's movement and misdirecting people.

You're vehemently fighting with friendlies, and ironically end up supporting their arguments as you frantically try to discredit them.

Not only does Ron not directly say that obeying the constitution is the key to a voluntary society, he distinctly agrees with the voluntaryists on this board. Period. No If's, ands or buts about it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ybf2L4Guw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RF1PMPbc0WA#!

...and I don't think I have to post that succession of quotes I typically do.

Constitutionalism is not the non-initiation of force, nor is it the key to a voluntary society. No one here is claiming that sound money is not a platform on the way to peace and prosperity and highly significant to achieving such a goal. But it's just that, a stop on the freedom train.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

The problem is you're getting so tripped up over your own personal issues about how you view "us" because we're not working according to your own "plan" to achieve liberty that you've made it your goal to actively disrupt the ideas we're trying to talk about. The same ideas Ron Paul points people torwards. I wasn't always a voluntaryist. Ron turned me into a strict constitutionalist, but it wasn't long before I became a voluntaryist after decided that I wanted to understand how Ron Paul made so much sense and where his ideas came from. The direction he pointed me, and so many others towards if they'd just make it a point to reject burying their head in the sand over taboos and decide to follow truth over social pressure to be confined within a restricted paradigm. Not so different from the "MSM watching sheep" who consider getting back to the constitution a "radical" idea.

But we just give you a horrid taste in your mouth, because it's outside of what you "agree with", it's not how you envision the liberty movement, and you don't want to see that kind of influence all due to your own perceptions about what the liberty movement is and how outsiders will perceive it and your own rationalizations for the state. Ron does not rationalize the existence of the state like you do. You always claim that we're misrepresenting Ron (with his own words) and how we're making him into this image of what we want him to be, when you don't even realize that you're doing exactly what you're talking about and using it as an excuse to crusade against the people Ron would likely consider the brightest torchbearers for liberty.

This isn't about how to appropriately bring liberty about, or "saving" Ron's character from slanderers, it's entirely about your values and distaste for people who are more radical than you, despite the fact that Ron supports them. This is your personal mission to mold the RPRevolution/Liberty Movement into what you envision it to be, and to not let it go in a direction you, personally, consider "off the rails". It's unfortunate, because you turn your friends, and some of the most passionate and intelligent supporters and defenders of liberty, into enemies over your own petty issues.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Ron Paul - "I am an advocate a very strong advocate of following very strictly the rule of law the Constitution of the United States."

This is just sad Trav.

I guess were back to this again:

"I wanted to see the brilliant writings of theoreticians such as Rothbard translated into practical political action. To my surprise there was a strong constituency for these views, and I was elected to four terms. Even a person familiar with only a small part of the vast work Rothbard has produced during his career knows his attitude towards politics. Like Mises, he labels the State as the "social apparatus of violent oppression.". - Ron Paul

"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

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.

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

"Taxation is theft" - Ron Paul

You want to know what the saddest part of this is, Trav?

All we're doing is expressing the fact that we're "mature enough to have that conversation". Unfortunately, you're not. You're hacking at the the people who are striking the root, which Ron pointed us torwards, because they aren't hacking at the branches with you.

You aren't the defender of liberty you imagine yourself to be Trav.

 

[Travlyr]

All we're doing is expressing the fact that we're "mature enough to have that conversation".

How do land laws not create governments?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

How do land laws not create governments?

How are you still pushing your rationalized, redefined bullshit. Haven't we had enough pages of that already?

Wow, this is just sad. You're not fighting against distractions Trav. You are a distraction. You're distracting yourself and everyone around you over your personal issues with voluntaryists and "omg anurkay" and how you NEED to be a vangaurd against these "heretical" ideas.

You aren't defending liberty, Trav, you're stifling it because it's unsettling to you and not according to your own vision.

You are the "enemy" you so righteously proclaim us to be. And, again, your fervent fight against us just continues to prove it and discredit yourself while making our case for us.