Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

[noneedtoaggress]

I fucking love this video. I'm spreading it all over tarnation.

Yeah, I posted it in a convo with an ex-coworker who made a post about RP the other day and he ended up sharing it on FB

 

[Conza88]

Ohhh haiiii guys... ... just a FYI:

The Real (Ron Paul) Revolution! - Lew Rockwell.com

All your bumping this topic... maybe Travis found it thanks to you! I'm sure he did

Thanks for helping spread the real message of liberty.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

The Real (Ron Paul) Revolution! - Lew Rockwell.com

Looooove it!

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Yeah. I wonder?

We all know your motivation, don't we?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ohhh haiiii guys... ... just a FYI:

The Real (Ron Paul) Revolution! - Lew Rockwell.com

All your bumping this topic... maybe Travis found it thanks to you! I'm sure he did

Thanks for helping spread the real message of liberty.

The Murray Rothbard mention from the YouTube comment is from End the Fed, page 59.

Also, here's the part the commenter edited out:

He would have been very excited. His natural tendency to be optimistic would have been enhanced. He would have loved every minute of it. He would have pushed the "revolution," especially since he contributed so much to preparing for it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

How to we get back to individual sovereignty if not first at least going back to a more Constitutionally limited Federal government?

I have heard Ron Paul many times say that we won't solve our problems until we only elect people to Congress that are willing to abide by the Constitution. If we can't meet this first step then convincing the electorate of individual sovereignty would seem impossible.

Constitutional government is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for individual sovereignty, while a universal agreement on individual sovereignty is a sufficient but not necessary requirement for a Constitutionally limited government.

I agree - and that's why I'm here, and why I support and work on behalf of Ron in the meager ways I'm able.

But fellows like Travlyr try to pass off the intellectually stunted notion that "constitutional government" is real human liberty. It is most certainly preferrable to whatever the hell it is we have now, but humans under government are by definition not free.

 

[Conza88]

The Murray Rothbard mention from the YouTube comment is from End the Fed, page 59.

Also, here's the part the commenter edited out: He would have been very excited. His natural tendency to be optimistic would have been enhanced. He would have loved every minute of it. He would have pushed the "revolution," especially since he contributed so much to preparing for it.

Cheers Feedingtheabyss .

Shortly before Murray died on January 7, 1995, I called him to tell him of my plans to run for Congress once again in the 1996 election. He was extremely excited and very encouraging. Unlike Leonard Read, Murray loved politics, Republican or Libertarian, or whatever he found of interest at any particular time. He got into the minutia of internecine activities that were beyond my interest. He always knew all the players and their perceived intentions and philosophical motivations. He played politics in the 1992 Republican primary in support of Pat Buchanan in a coalition of sorts, when Pat opposed the first war on Iraq and George H. W. Bush’s tax increases.

One thing I am certain of—if Murray could have been with us during the presidential primary in 2008, he would have had a lot to say about it and fun saying it. He would have been very excited. His natural tendency to be optimistic would have been enhanced. He would have loved every minute of it. He would have pushed the “revolution,” especially since he contributed so much to preparing for it.

I can just imagine how enthralled he would have been to see college kids burning Federal Reserve notes. He would have led the chant we heard at so many rallies: “End the Fed! End the Fed!”

Even after the presidential campaign, the momentum has generated an interest in a serious movement to expose the Fed for the purposes of ending it, and Murray would be pleased. His intellectual effort would have been vindicated. Ideas were being translated into a serious effort to bring about a major political and economic change. His books, and especially his smaller booklets designed for broader distribution, on why the Fed must be ended and a 100 percent gold standard be required, have served us well. And they will continue to do so. His books What Has Government Done to Our Money? The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar, and The Case Against the Fed 7 have been invaluable assets in educating the general public.

Righhhhhhhhhhhhhht, so Ron Paul and Rothbard supporters... a revolution "he contributed so much to prepare for" must be relegated to a sub-forum and chided... and the target of witch hunts & trolling the 'anarchists'.

You guys sureeee love freedom!

 

[WilliamC]

I agree - and that's why I'm here, and why I support and work on behalf of Ron in the meager ways I'm able.

But fellows like Travlyr try to pass off the intellectually stunted notion that "constitutional government" is real human liberty. It is most certainly preferrable to whatever the hell it is we have now, but humans under government are by definition not free.

Given our starting point and how far we have to go I cannot help but feel Travlyr and those who argue from a strictly Constitutional point of view are my allies.

If, heaven forbid, time ever comes when we are actually challenged to live with the results of our efforts and have slashed 90% or so of the size and scope of the Federal budget, then perhaps time will come that I find any disagreements I might have with strict Constitutionalists to be worth expounding upon.

Personally I think government power should be reduced more at the Federal and International level and by necessity that would entail more powerful State governments, but I don't think that is a perfect solution by any means, rather it is a pragmatic one.

Perhaps then we could find a way to get a State government or two to relinquish most of it's power to the County level, but I fail to see any practical method to completely eliminate the State unless and until we have a profound change in human nature.

But for now anyone who honestly wants substantially less government is on my side

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Given our starting point and how far we have to go I cannot help but feel Travlyr and those who argue from a strictly Constitutional point of view are my allies.

I agree with you. Travlyr doesn't.

 

[WilliamC]

I agree with you. Travlyr doesn't.

Well I've just never seen it for myself, so I can't agree in turn.

Sometimes I think many of the problems are simply communication via this constricted medium, and if those who apparently disagree could talk face to face it would be much easier to at least find out exactly where they disagree and usually be able to agree to disagree and move on.

But forums lend themselves to debate, and debate hinges on disagreement, so there we have it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Well I've just never seen it for myself, so I can't agree in turn.

Sometimes I think many of the problems are simply communication via this constricted medium, and if those who apparently disagree could talk face to face it would be much easier to at least find out exactly where they disagree and usually be able to agree to disagree and move on.

But forums lend themselves to debate, and debate hinges on disagreement, so there we have it.

Oh I agree that discussion in person is preferrable.

With Travlyr, as nnta has cited in this thread, he has made it his "mission" to marginalize and antagonize folks here who are advocates of statelessness. He is a dishonest interlocutor.

Edit to add: In other words, he isn't interested in building coalitions. He's interested in sticking his flag in the movement and calling it his.

 

[Travlyr]

Oh I agree that discussion in person is preferrable.

With Travlyr, as nnta has cited in this thread, he has made it his "mission" to marginalize and antagonize folks here who are advocates of statelessness. He is a dishonest interlocutor.

Edit to add: In other words, he isn't interested in building coalitions. He's interested in sticking his flag in the movement and calling it his.

You misread me. I followed the rules. When anarchists posted their philosophy in searchable forum, I reported them for going against the wishes of the forum. Once the discussion was moved to the philosophy subforum as requested by the forum owners, I stood my ground on my beliefs. The fact that you are unable to convince me that you have a monopoly on liberty is your problem, not mine.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I stood my ground on my beliefs. The fact that you are unable to convince me that you have a monopoly on liberty is your problem, not mine.

HERETICS, THE LOT OF YA!!!

 

[Travlyr]

I agree - and that's why I'm here, and why I support and work on behalf of Ron in the meager ways I'm able.

But fellows like Travlyr try to pass off the intellectually stunted notion that "constitutional government" is real human liberty. It is most certainly preferrable to whatever the hell it is we have now, but humans under government are by definition not free.

And how do I do that? Well, of course, by reading and quoting Ron Paul and then asking questions.

FREE MARKETS, HONEST MONEY, PRIVATE PROPERTY
Ron Paul​

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 ma ority 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.

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.

Edit for clarity: This is my claim not Ron Paul's and I never intended otherwise: "Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society."

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

Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View[

"For as long as I can remember, I wanted to be free from government coercion in any form. All my natural instincts toward freedom were inevitably challenged by the established school system, the media, and the government. These systems tried to cast doubt on my conviction that only an unhampered market is consonant with individual liberty. Although reassured that intellectual giants like Mises agreed with a laissez-faire system, I was frustrated by knowing what was right, while watching a disaster developing for our economy. The better I came to understand how the market worked, the more I saw the need to implement these ideas through political action." - Ron Paul

A long time ago, I posted the fact that land owners, who want to keep their homes, will fight statelessness because they get the authority to own land from Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. Unless your movement recognizes that fact, then homeowners should oppose the anarchist philosophy. It is a nomadic philosophy.

I ask again.

How do land laws not create governments?

Anyone? As a landowner, I will not agree to statelessness philosophy unless this question is addressed satisfactorily. I will not give up my rights for anyone.

Ron Paul calls himself the "Champion of the Constitution." Why should I reject him for it? Why should I not believe him?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YKiyOpKhUI4

 

[Travlyr]

Is that you?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

You misread me. I followed the rules. When anarchists posted their philosophy in searchable forum, I reported them for going against the wishes of the forum.

Baloney. It took us months to get the anarchists to start all their threads in the philosophy subforum. I took a lot of heat for it and so did Rev9.

lolz.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Is that you?

It was how I envision your Neo-Constitutionalist Coup D'Etat.

 

[Xerographica]

Edit to add: In other words, he isn't interested in building coalitions. He's interested in sticking his flag in the movement and calling it his.

If you're interested in building coalitions then I'm sure you'll find this thread of interest...Tax Choice - A Strategy for the Occupy Movement.

 

[Travlyr]

It was how I envision your Neo-Constitutionalist Coup D'Etat.

Neo-Constitutionalist Coup D'Etat?

Have you ever read Mises?

Liberalism, State and Government

Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Neo-Constitutionalist Coup D'Etat?

Have you ever read Mises?

Yeah, we've gone over that already a few times I believe, that was partially what this post was about, don't you remember?

Just more disingenious bullshit out of Trav.

It's not the question that's immature. The problem is that Trav will not accept anything that fundamentally challenges certain perceptions he holds. He simply ignores it and reasserts his position later. His "conundrum" has been addressed several times over, and extremely patiently by other people.