Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

[Travlyr]

How are you still pushing your rationalized bullshit?

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 how you NEED to be a vangaurd against them.

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

I really thought that was a mature question to ask. Perhaps you are not mature enough for the discussion, yet.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I really thought that was a mature question to ask. Perhaps you are not mature enough for the discussion, yet.

Who do you think you're fooling with this? Continue to rationalize your bullshit away and create distractions, Trav. Travlyr Ron Paul needs you to defend him and the constitutionalist uprising liberty movement from your it's "enemies".

 

[Travlyr]

Who do you think you're fooling with this? Continue to rationalize your bullshit away Trav.

Let me give my mature opinion on the answer to that question.

How do land laws not create governments?

Land laws do create governments. Representative governance is better than having no say in your governance.

Become a Delegate for Ron Paul.

 

[onlyrp]

Let me give my mature opinion on the answer to that question.


Land laws do create governments. Representative governance is better than having no say in your governance.

Become a Delegate for Ron Paul.

sorry if I'm not fully following, is this a debate between you and him, on whether having no laws/government is better than having some, local laws and governments?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

It's Travlyr defining the state in a different way than the voluntaryists and Ron Paul, in order to create a distraction on the forums and allow him to rationalize his statism, which again Ron does not.

Land Laws™ is Travlyr's "pragmatarianism".

 

[Travlyr]

It's Travlyr defining the state in a different way than the voluntaryists and Ron Paul, in order to create a distraction on the forums and allow him to rationalize his statism, which again Ron does not.

Land Laws™ is Travlyr's "pragmatarianism".

While in reality it is a sincere question which demonstrates that land ownership require governments of some form. Unless somebody can refute it.

How do land laws not create governments?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

While in reality it is a sincere question

Uh, huh. Which reality is that, Trav?

 

[Travlyr]

Uh, huh. Which reality is that, Trav?

I am not sure the source of your aggression. Is that question too hard for you?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

lol, who do you think you're fooling Trav?

Your Land Laws™ are based on your own "might makes right" theory of land appropriation and law. As I've shown above it has absolutely nothing to do with what Ron Paul describes, at all. Myself and others have had pages and pages of discussions with you over your rationalized distractions and when you're criticized you simply ignore it, just like you ignore all the Ron Paul quotes that don't satisfy your "vision" of The Ron Paul Constitutionalist Revolutionary Coup d'etat.

 

[Travlyr]

lol, who do you think you're fooling Trav?

Your Land Laws™ are based on your own "might makes right" theory of land appropriation and law. Myself and others have had pages and pages of discussions with you over your rationalized distractions and when you're criticized you simply ignore it, just like you ignore all the Ron Paul quotes that don't satisfy your "vision" of The Ron Paul Constitutionalist Revolutionary Coup d'etat.

Ron Paul calls for obeying the constitution. You somehow think that forcing the rulers to obey the rule of law is calling for a violent revolution. Best I can tell is that letting them assassinate citizens is much more violent than hunting them down, putting them on trial, and, if found guilty, then make them stop. Your misunderstanding, and claiming that I am calling for a violent revolution, is quite immature. All because I asked you a question that is too hard for you to answer.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Ron Paul calls for obeying the constitution.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, that's not all he says, and that's not where he stops.

You somehow think that forcing the rulers to obey the rule of law is calling for a violent revolution. Best I can tell is that letting them assassinate citizens is much more violent than hunting them down, putting them on trial, and, if found guilty, then make them stop. Your misunderstanding, and claiming that I am calling for a violent revolution, is quite immature. All because I asked you a question that is too hard for you to answer.

In that thread, you were calling for violent revolution against what you consider a failed political process.

Can you please show us where Ron advocates this?

Because I'm pretty sure he calls for non-violence civil disobedience and peaceful secession, not a coup d'etat.

 

[Travlyr]

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, that's not all he says, and that's not where he stops.

You're calling for violent revolution against what you consider a failed political process.

So forcing our leaders to obey the constitution is a call for a violent revolution? Is that what you are saying? Do you think they will obey the constitution if we spammed their email inboxes?

 

[onlyrp]

lol, who do you think you're fooling Trav?

Your Land Laws™ are based on your own "might makes right" theory of land appropriation and law. As I've shown above it has absolutely nothing to do with what Ron Paul describes, at all. Myself and others have had pages and pages of discussions with you over your rationalized distractions and when you're criticized you simply ignore it, just like you ignore all the Ron Paul quotes that don't satisfy your "vision" of The Ron Paul Constitutionalist Revolutionary Coup d'etat.

This is a serious question, what is your alternative and what DOES make laws and government, if not land laws?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

So forcing our leaders to obey the constitution is a call for a violent revolution?

Does anybody suppose that the rulers in charge today are going to peacefully acquiesce to demands of liberty, peace, and prosperity? Personally, I do not. I believe the people will have to use force to hunt them down, stop their shenanigans, and force them to obey the supreme laws of the land.

It doesn't matter how much you claim it's a "restoration". Yes, what you've described here is a revolutionary coup d'etat.

Is that what you are saying? Do you think they will obey the constitution if we spammed their email inboxes?

No, I don't think the state will ever obey any constitution. You should know this by now.

 

[Travlyr]

It doesn't matter how much you claim it's a "restoration". Yes, what you've described here is a revolutionary coup d'etat.

Childish nonsense.

No, I don't think the state will ever obey any constitution. You should know this by now.

Become a Delegate for Ron Paul

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."
- Pericles, 430 B.C.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

This is a serious question, what is your alternative and what DOES make laws and government, if not land laws?

Simplistic version:



Better version:



Part2, Part 3, Part4, Part5

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Childish nonsense.



Become a Delegate for Ron Paul

“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” - Ron Paul



But my ideas are childish nonsense.

What we really need is to fulfill Ron Paul's vision of a violent uprising to take control of the US government and restore the constitution.

No straying from Ron with distractions here, folks.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by the Congress and signed by the President, both of which were imposed upon all human beings living and eventually born into the territory commonly identified as "the United States of America" by the Constitution.

I guess I have to wonder why I'm to be convinced that what I really need is a "return to the Constitution".

This Travlyr fellow tells me that "we" just need to "obey" the "Constitution"; yet we've already seen over the past 200+ years that the Constitution was seldom if ever "obeyed". Why shouldn't I advocate for what is objectively, observably apparent - the sovereignty of each individual? It seems that "we" should have as much success convincing other people to respect the sovereignty of other individuals as "we" will having them respect a piece of paper.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

This Travlyr fellow tells me that "we" just need to "obey" the "Constitution"; yet we've already seen over the past 200+ years that the Constitution was seldom if ever "obeyed". Why shouldn't I advocate for what is objectively, observably apparent - the sovereignty of each individual? It seems that "we" should have as much success convincing other people to respect the sovereignty of other individuals as "we" will having them respect a piece of paper.

More than just that the constitution creates a loophole which gives a class of people the perceived ability to violate the rights of other individuals. There would be no such loophole to create a class of "legitimate violators". It would be clear that a private party calling theft "taxation" would simply be playing word games to justify their criminal acts.

 

[newbitech]

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.

1.) That is distinctly NOT the philosophy of Voluntarism. That IS the definition of voluntary. Sadly, Adam Kokesh, and many others, cannot seem to separate themselves and their ideas from word association GAMES. It really speaks strongly to a persons character when they so strongly desire to be associated with a particular term. I have a lot of respect for Adam Kokesh, but he does not do a very good job of representing what Ron Paul believes. For instance, Ron Paul would NEVER consider leading an "Army" of active duty protesters to turn their backs on the commander and chief of the United States Armed Forces. What Adam Kokesh did was lead a group of people in an act of civil disobedience. Ron Paul thinks that if people want to advocate for self-government in this way, it is good. BUT HE HIMSELF doesn't and wouldn't do that. So to be clear, Adam Kokesh is free to make the claim that he represents the philosophy of Voluntarism, but he tried unsuccessfully to tag Ron Paul with this label simply because Ron Paul believes in voluntary (dictionary definition) interactions. Every believes in voluntary interaction. There is nothing special about that belief. What is special is that Ron Paul gets people to understand how this interaction extends to self-government beyond our personal and familial spheres.

2.) He is not advocating any philosophy with the words you quoted, unless you really want to say that he is advocating for peaceful interactions. Nothing really special there. Everyone will tell you their motive is peaceful interaction. No one really wants to fight. What is special is how Ron Paul gets people to understand that peacefulness can and should extend beyond individual and familial RELATIONSHIPS.