Would you like to see a discussion between Stefan Molyneux and Ron Paul?

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, but like Ron Paul I understand that the constitution is important because of it's respect for the principles of liberty, not vice versa.

All of us are in this for liberty, Clay.

The problem is not that he advocates for 0 government. I hope that you don't think that everyone who advocates 0 government opposes political involvement to promote liberty in the mean time.

Of course not. There are a number of great anarchists, voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, etc., who are very involved in political activism to reinstate the Constitution and the rule of law.

However, Stephan also opposes political involvement, and so I would not consider him an ally on the political front, though he would be on the educational, civdis, or agorist fronts.

Exactly.

This would be INCREDIBLE to watch. Titans of minarchism and anarchism. Stef has done a few of these debates recently but I haven't had the chance to watch them. I would hope that seeing the contradictions in Ron Paul's argument that Stef would bring out would convert some to complete liberty.

And the truth comes out.

 

[ClayTrainor]

For what ends?

I know what my philosophy is, and I have a pretty good idea about both of theirs -- I wouldn't mind seeing them collaborate on a project, but I don't see how a 'debate' would help anything beyond alienating two groups of people who want some similar ends and use some similar means.

To perhaps settle some of the hostility towards Voluntarists in here?

Also to help possibly encourage some of the anarchists to support some of ron pauls efforts, vs. just shitting a bunch of our efforts?

 

[ClayTrainor]

All of us are in this for liberty, Clay.

Exactly. The constitution != liberty, although it is likely the closest a political document has ever come, and will come for some time.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Exactly. The constitution != liberty.

Clay, it is a tool in securing liberty.

We are way past debating this shit.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

 

[Conza88]

No, no, no, no, no.

Not publicly, not recorded, nor attended by anyone who is going to announce it to the world.

It would force Ron to come out imo. Way to destroy the movement.

 

[Conza88]

Stefan Molyneaux, as a private citizen, has full license and can get away with stating the truth about a voluntary society.

But, while RP is open and considerate to voluntaryism, he's not afforded the ability to advocate for it because he's in congress and can't afford being labeled an "anarchist".


So while RP might agree fully - he would be stuck in the argument because he would be forced to disagree and advocate for government. And that's a role he doesn't want to play - he wants to be the one who advocates for less government.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Clay, it is a tool in securing liberty.

So is a gun but, I don't base my philosophy on the gun. The constitution is far from perfect, as Ron Paul admits.

Ron Paul's philosophy and morality is not based on the constitution alone, there is more to liberty than politics.

It just so happens that the political system is where the abuse of power that harms liberty comes from and we must infiltrate to control and reduce/eliminate it.

It really shouldn't exist, but we should recognize that it does and we must find the best way to reduce it before we can eliminate it.

If we can restore the constitution, we would quickly realize that government is not much of a solution for anything, especially the defense of liberty.

We are way past debating this shit.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

I will always stand for liberty, not government. I support Adam, Peter, joe mcartor, Rand, etc. because Ron Pauls presidential run is what woke me up. I see political campaigns as having true value in terms of education, even if our candidates don't win. The only thing i truly love about the constitution is the first ten amendments, and i talk about those as much as possible, because they adhere to my foundation of beliefs.

I trust that canditates peter, Rand and Adam will not abuse their power, and will do whatever they can to return it to the individuals that gave it to them, if they win. This is why i can support them, and lend my efforts to their campaigns.

What i'm trying to say is, the politics are as important as the waking up the masses to the concept of individual liberty, and individual rights, as the founders intended. Education is more important than reigning in the controls.

 

[ClayTrainor]

No, no, no, no, no.

Not publicly, not recorded, nor attended by anyone who is going to announce it to the world.

It would force Ron to come out imo. Way to destroy the movement.

Interesting point.

I got a feeling this may be the result too, because they clearly agree on principles, but i didn't think of how it could destroy the movement, could you please elaborate on that. Do you disagree with stefan on political activism?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Clay,

First things first.

Before we "fix it", first we have to get it reinstated.

It's much like runners in a relay race. Those who are paying so much attention to what they will do after they get the baton, but miss the handoff altogether.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Clay,

First things first.

Before we "fix it", first we have to get it reinstated.

It's much like runners in a relay race. Those who are paying so much attention to what they will do after they get the baton, but miss the handoff altogether.

I hear ya

I support all peaceful efforts to reduce and eliminate forceful government powers. re-instating the constitution happens to be 1, that i think will help us get there, which is why i'm here.

 

[Conza88]

Interesting point.

I got a feeling this may be the result too, because they clearly agree on principles, but i didn't think of how it could destroy the movement, could you please elaborate on that. Do you disagree with stefan on political activism?

I disagree with stefan on political activism yes. And I believe it is logically consistent with tactics / strategy / method / principles for a free society. Elaboration here.

I agree with Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard. And Ron is in no way, in contradiction with anarcho-capitalism. As long as he doesn't add to the increase in the size of government, there is no issue.

 

[tremendoustie]

Clay,

First things first.

Before we "fix it", first we have to get it reinstated.

It's much like runners in a relay race. Those who are paying so much attention to what they will do after they get the baton, but miss the handoff altogether.

A fair point. I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing principles, but you're absolutely right that it should not distract us from what we need to do today.

 

[tremendoustie]

Education is more important than reigning in the controls.

Exactly right. As I'm sure you'll agree, though, often some of the best education is accomplished through efforts to reign in the controls. That, I believe, is why Ron Paul is a wild success story. What he won was far more important than what he lost.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Exactly right. As I'm sure you'll agree, though, often some of the best education is accomplished through efforts to reign in the controls. That, I believe, is why Ron Paul is a wild success story. What he won was far more important than what he lost.

Yup. my path to understanding liberty began the first time i saw Ron Paul on TV talking about his presidential run, and everything he said just made so much dam common sense. I wasn't used to being captivated by a politician, it had never happened to me before. It wasn't the man that got my attention thought, it was what he was saying and how he was saying it.

I have no doubt that Peter, Adam, Rand etc. will have the same effect on others, once the campaigning truly begins, which is one of the many reasons as to why i support them.

 

[cheapseats]

Agreed. If we organize this, whoever talks to Stefan should explain what you've outlined, and just confirm that he won't "accuse" ron paul of anything in a disrespectful manner.

You are proposing to INFLUENCE AND/OR CONTROL a debate at the outset in order to protect "your" candidate, and to SPIN the results more surely in his favor. I know it isn't Right, but is that correct?

 

[TortoiseDream]

To me Stefan speaks to my ideal side (probably not exactly, I haven't listened to everything he says, but rather close on principle) and Ron speaks to my practical side. That is, my ideal society would be one run by self-government (anarchy, voluntarism, whatever you want to call it) but I think it is just a practical impossibility in the current American political climate. We can't even convince people to reduce government (hopefully that changes), how do we expect people to abolish it? I think a better goal for the time being is to fight for a small government that adheres to the Constitution. If that can be done then the transition to anarchy will be a lot, lot easier in comparison.

I know Stefan disagrees so I'd like to see a conversation particularly on that subject. I agree, I think Ron and Stefan agree on a lot of the same principle but just disagree on how to act to implement them.

Did you guys ever try to do something? I know this was from several months ago, but the thread title was very enticing. I just watched Stefan's debate at Drexel Unversity, it was wonderful.

 

[TortoiseDream]

Yup. my path to understanding liberty began the first time i saw Ron Paul on TV talking about his presidential run, and everything he said just made so much dam common sense. I wasn't used to being captivated by a politician, it had never happened to me before. It wasn't the man that got my attention thought, it was what he was saying and how he was saying it.

I have no doubt that Peter, Adam, Rand etc. will have the same effect on others, once the campaigning truly begins, which is one of the many reasons as to why i support them.

Oh man, brings me back memories of staying up until like 4am watching his debate videos on youtube and just going, "holy shit this guy is exactly right."

 

[Met Income]

All Stefan has to say is that government is a monopoly of violence against humans, and therefore, is immoral. You start there and everything else falls into place.

 

[inibo]

I wasn't around much when this thread was started, but as long as it's been resurrected I'll put in my 2 cents worth. Such a debate would never happen. I'm sure Stefan Molyneux would love to do it, but Ron Paul would have nothing to gain.

Besides it is already obvious what Molyneux would say because he's already said it. All you have to do is go here and type "Ron Paul" in the search box: http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot

Look for the video titled "The Ron Paul Revolution - A Postmortem (and prescription)"

I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but you would not hear anything different from him with Ron Paul in the room and having such arguments as widely spread as such a debate would do because so many Ron Paul supporters would watch it would not be good for Ron Paul.

As I said, he would have nothing to gain from it.

 

[South Park Fan]

As a voluntaryist, I think that such a debate might be uncomfortable for Ron Paul, since it would force him between a rock and a hard place. I would rather see Stephen Molyneux vs. some "libertarian", like Neal Boortz or Sean Hannity (although this would be more to get enjoyment from watching the latter get creamed).