PDA

View Full Version : The Only Choice on November 4th by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.




Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 04:20 AM
The Only Choice on November 4th (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/nov/03/00013/)
Don't vote! Article by Lew Rockwell.


Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.


The critical problem we face today is the same one all mankind has faced: the state, those monopolists who claim the right to break the laws that they make and enforce. How to restrain them is the critical problem of all sound political thinking. Making matters worse, this gang now has a monopoly on the money and the ability to print it, and they are abusing that power at our expense.



How does voting change the situation? Neither of the candidates for president wants to do anything about the problem. On the contrary, they want to make it worse. This is for a reason. The state owns the “democratic process” as surely as it owns the Departments of Labor and Defense and uses it in ways that benefit the state and no one else.


On the other hand, we do have the freedom not to vote. No one has yet drafted us into the voting booth. I suggest that we exercise this right not to participate. It is one of the few rights we have left. Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it.


You might say that this is ineffective. But what effect does voting have? It gives them what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear.


This year especially there is no lesser of two evils. There is socialism or fascism. The true American spirit should guide every voter to have no part of either.


Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and editor of LewRockwell.com.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-28-2008, 04:29 AM
Lew is right.

Do you think that he would have voted for Ron Paul, had he won the GOP nomination?

brandon
10-28-2008, 04:31 AM
Lew is right.

Do you think that he would have voted for Ron Paul, had he won the GOP nomination?
I agree with Mr. Rockwell, and I'm sure he would of voted for RP if RP was running for president.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 04:53 AM
Lew is right.

Do you think that he would have voted for Ron Paul, had he won the GOP nomination? As I understand it, Lew did NOT vote for Ron in the primary. Like me, Lew has NOT voted for a very long time. ;) It's a matter of PRINCIPLE.

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Thomas Jefferson

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 04:56 AM
I agree with Mr. Rockwell, and I'm sure he would of voted for RP if RP was running for president. What leads you to that conclusion, if I may ask?

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 05:28 AM
Voting 3rd party, like Ron suggested we do, sends a signal that we do not accept what is being doled out to us in the 2 party system. Our very vote registers that sentiment.

It seems to me that by not voting, we are indistinguishable from those who are just too lazy to get off the sofa to vote. I'm not quite sure what that does to help our cause.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 05:57 AM
Voting 3rd party, like Ron suggested we do, sends a signal that we do not accept what is being doled out to us in the 2 party system. Our very vote registers that sentiment.

Nope, voting merely legitimizes, blesses, endorses and sanctifies the current "system's" corrupt RIGGED game.

It seems to me that by not voting, we are indistinguishable from those who are just too lazy to get off the sofa to vote. I'm not quite sure what that does to help our cause.

I have much less than ZERO interest in assisting or furthering ANY of the barbarian statist's nefarious schemes, scams or causes, with my consent. :p


Thanks! :)

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"


http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 06:37 AM
"This year especially there is no lesser of two evils. There is socialism or fascism. The true American spirit should guide every voter to have no part of either." -- Lew Rockwell


"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." -- Emma Goldman

http://rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html

nobody's_hero
10-28-2008, 06:49 AM
Short of ***bing federal buildings, what are the options besides voting? (That will change anything, that is) :confused:

Given the alternatives, I'll try voting. At least, if we vote, we'll see what our approximate numbers are.

Still, if you aren't going to vote, post here at RPF that you won't, so you'll be counted.

(Right now, it stands at ***,***,*** disgruntled citizens/voters, + Truth Warrior. ;))

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 07:34 AM
Short of ***bing federal buildings, what are the options besides voting? (That will change anything, that is) :confused:

Given the alternatives, I'll try voting. At least, if we vote, we'll see what our approximate numbers are.

Still, if you aren't going to vote, post here at RPF that you won't, so you'll be counted.

(Right now, it stands at ***,***,*** disgruntled citizens/voters, + Truth Warrior. ;)) How many of "We the People of the United States of America", vote? How many of those ELIGIBLE to vote, routinely do NOT?

"Taxation without representation is TYRANNY!"

"Governments derive their JUST power from the CONSENT of the governed."

Ron Paul respects and understands those NOT voting, on principle. ;)

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 07:50 AM
Voting 3rd party, like Ron suggested we do, sends a signal that we do not accept what is being doled out to us in the 2 party system. Our very vote registers that sentiment.

It seems to me that by not voting, we are indistinguishable from those who are just too lazy to get off the sofa to vote. I'm not quite sure what that does to help our cause.

My feelings exactly.

I don't disagree with Lew (or TW) often but not voting imho sends only two messages - throwing up your hands in surrender or apathy. That may not be the message intended but in my opinion that is how it will be interpretted by whoever you are trying to send a message to.

Even if only 50% of people vote, it just gets reported as "low voter turnout" and although it may reflect poorly on the candidates to some small degree, the MSM will always spin it as a defect in the voters more than a defect in the candidates.

However if we could get even half of the non-voters to vote third party - even if they would not all get behind one candidate - this would send an unspinnable message that the current two party system was unacceptable and the two mainstream candidates were both not wanted. You want to talk about taking away a mandate, that's how you do it. We get a third party with a strong enough showing and you might even get some "lesser of two evils" voters to give third parties a second look.

Much as I like and respect TW, I think your view on this matter is mistaken.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 08:00 AM
My feelings exactly.

I don't disagree with Lew (or TW) often but not voting imho sends only two messages - throwing up your hands in surrender or apathy. That may not be the message intended but in my opinion that is how it will be interpretted by whoever you are trying to send a message to.

Even if only 50% of people vote, it just gets reported as "low voter turnout" and although it may reflect poorly on the candidates to some small degree, the MSM will always spin it as a defect in the voters more than a defect in the candidates.

However if we could get even half of the non-voters to vote third party - even if they would not all get behind one candidate - this would send an unspinnable message that the current two party system was unacceptable and the two mainstream candidates were both not wanted. You want to talk about taking away a mandate, that's how you do it. We get a third party with a strong enough showing and you might even get some "lesser of two evils" voters to give third parties a second look.

Much as I like and respect TW, I think your view on this matter is mistaken. Is Ron's view on this matter mistaken also, since he understands and agrees with Lew and me? ;)

princessredtights
10-28-2008, 08:15 AM
Voting 3rd party, like Ron suggested we do, sends a signal that we do not accept what is being doled out to us in the 2 party system. Our very vote registers that sentiment.

It seems to me that by not voting, we are indistinguishable from those who are just too lazy to get off the sofa to vote. I'm not quite sure what that does to help our cause.


I've heard some friends say they weren't going to vote (for the reasons Lew says) but I agree with your thoughts exactly!

Also, I think there's a movement to dissolve the third parties (I know in our area there is something coming up ...) and I think that it sends a stronger message to "the establishment". I have some friends who are D's who are NOT Obama supporters - they are thinking of not voting and I have BEGGED them to pick one of the 3rd party candidates ... BEGGED ...

torchbearer
10-28-2008, 08:19 AM
Is Ron's view on this matter mistaken also, since he understands and agrees with Lew and me? ;)

Ron votes. He gets it. Why don't you?

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 08:21 AM
Is Ron's view on this matter mistaken also, since he understands and agrees with Lew and me? ;)

Well, I was kinda hopiung for a more in depth response as to WHY you feel not voting is a more appropriate response, and more effective, than voting third party. Certainly if that is indeed Ron Paul's position - not just one he accepts as valid but what he encourages - that would encourage me even more to be open to examining the position and its philosophical underpinnings.

Why do you and Lew believe not voting is the answer? Is it because you believe it is all decided by Diebold regardless? Is it because you don't believe we should have elected officials at all? I still disagree with you and agree with LE, but I am open to being converted.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 08:25 AM
Ron votes. He gets it. Why don't you? Because Ron is just undergoing the slow process of becoming a recovering barbarian statist, and I've already had my epiphany long ago. ;) BTW, he's coming along and around very nicely.<IMHO> :D

torchbearer
10-28-2008, 08:27 AM
Because Ron is just undergoing slow process of becoming a recovering barbarian statist, and I've already had my epiphany long ago. ;)

You gave up a long time ago. Go away. You don't count.

torchbearer
10-28-2008, 08:29 AM
Let's say your quotes and wiki links convince every person in this country not to vote.... know what happens?
The crooks/sociopaths still vote, They win by 100% and they continue to oppress the people.
Your solution of not voting doesn't change the system, and can't.

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 08:29 AM
Is Ron's view on this matter mistaken also, since he understands and agrees with Lew and me? ;)

No he doesn't. Ron VOTES. He respects Lew's view, but if you recall, he also recommended that we VOTE 3rd party.

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 08:30 AM
Because Ron is just undergoing the slow process of becoming a recovering barbarian statist, and I've already had my epiphany long ago. ;)

Yeah, that's why he's a U.S. Congressman. :rolleyes:

Note: I find it curious that even Murray Rothbard has written that he didn't classify traditional small government libertarian-conservatives as "statists", but yet you do.

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 08:34 AM
So RP doesn't exactly encourage your position but he understands and respects it? Seems like you were being a tad bit misleading TruthWarrior. :(

torchbearer
10-28-2008, 08:35 AM
If I was the ruling elite of this country, I'd want as few people to vote as possible so it would be easier for me to control the outcome of the elections in my favor.
TW is helping the ruling elite.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 08:37 AM
You gave up a long time ago. Go away. You don't count. The voters give up to their PTB "preselected" wannabe "shepherds". Free MEN do not.

Outcast from the sociopathic "flock"? :cool:

That's NOT what Ron says, BTW.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 08:38 AM
So RP doesn't exactly encourage your position but he understands and respects it? Seems like you were being a tad bit misleading TruthWarrior. :( How so?

torchbearer
10-28-2008, 08:39 AM
The voters give up to their PTB "preselected" wannabe "shepherds". Free MEN do not.

Outcast from the sociopathic "flock"? :cool:

That's NOT what Ron says, BTW.

You don't count because you don't contribute to the efforts of removing bad Men from office.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 08:41 AM
If I was the ruling elite of this country, I'd want as few people to vote as possible so it would be easier for me to control the outcome of the elections in my favor.
TW is helping the ruling elite. But controlling the "awakened to the bogus scam" people would be a real bitch. Think USSR, 1989. ;)

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 08:44 AM
You don't count because you don't contribute to the efforts of removing bad Men from office. You voters "collectively" put and keep them ALL in office, clean up your own mess. :p :rolleyes:

torchbearer
10-28-2008, 08:44 AM
But controlling the "awakened to the bogus scam" people would be a real bitch. Think USSR, 1989. ;)

If no one voted but the ruling class(the people in power), there would still be elections, and we'd still have an overbearing state.
How does not voting change that?

torchbearer
10-28-2008, 08:45 AM
You voters "collectively" put them in office, clean up your own mess. :p :rolleyes:

You non-vote allowed them into office. Its your mess.

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 08:52 AM
But controlling the "awakened to the bogus scam" people would be a real bitch. Think USSR, 1989. ;)

Hardly anyone knows of principled non-voters, TW. Your non-vote is lumped with those who are apathetic.

That is why Ron suggested we vote 3rd party, so our stance against the 2 party duopoly is registered. In my opinion, that is how we show that we are "awakened to the bogus scam".

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 08:58 AM
Is Ron's view on this matter mistaken also, since he understands and agrees with Lew and me? ;)


So RP doesn't exactly encourage your position but he understands and respects it? Seems like you were being a tad bit misleading TruthWarrior. :(


How so?

From what I have been able to glean, Ron Paul does understand your position, but by saying he agrees with it I think you overstate your case.

If he agreed with it, he would practice it.

Since he does not practice it, it would appear that his position is that voting for a principled third party candidate has more value than not voting.

This is why I feel your initial statement is misleading. So since you hold Ron Paul's opinion on the matter in such high esteem, I encourage you to rethink your position, whatever "epiphany" you believe you have had and support Chuck Baldwin. (another Ron Paul position btw;))

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:01 AM
If no one voted but the ruling class(the people in power), there would still be elections, and we'd still have an overbearing state.
How does not voting change that? The same way that "voting" does.

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." -- Emma Goldman

You may just want to peruse the 500+ year old "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude", when you get the chance. ;)

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 09:04 AM
You may just want to peruse the 500+ year old "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude", when you get the chance. ;)

Do you pay federal or state income taxes? Do you pay property tax? Do you have a Driver's License? Do you pay sales tax? etc.......

Just wondering if you actually walk your talk. ;)

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:10 AM
Hardly anyone knows of principled non-voters, TW. Your non-vote is lumped with those who are apathetic.

The willful ignorance of others, is not within my control nor particular concern. People think whatever they choose to think, for whatever "reasons" ( so called ).

That is why Ron suggested we vote 3rd party, so our stance against the 2 party duopoly is registered. In my opinion, that is how we show that we are "awakened to the bogus scam".

I think that Ron was just trying to provide a peaceful outlet and placebo "fix" for the state "brainwashed" produced political "junkies" and voting "addicts". ;)


:D

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 09:13 AM
:I think that Ron was just trying to provide a peaceful outlet and placebo "fix" for the state "brainwashed" produced political "junkies" and voting "addicts".

Yeah, that's why Ron is a 10 term Congressman. :rolleyes: I guess you categorize him as "brainwashed" too, eh?

Andrew-Austin
10-28-2008, 09:14 AM
I probably won't vote, but my non-vote is not going to send any kind of effective message since voter turnout will likely be relatively high.

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 09:14 AM
Do you pay federal or state income taxes? Do you pay property tax? Do you have a Driver's License? Do you pay sales tax? etc.......

Just wondering if you actually walk your talk. ;)

My wife's previous doctor actually went all in on this philosophy - he was a WWII vet and challenged his requirement to pay taxes and WON, went anti state all the way.

Of course TPTB completely destroyed his practice, forcing him to shut down his OB/GYN clinic and eventually leave the state, much to the disappointment of his patients (he had a thriving practice). I am not sure what ever became of him, but he is certainly a FREE MAN wherever he is.

Freedom isn't free.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:15 AM
From what I have been able to glean, Ron Paul does understand your position, but by saying he agrees with it I think you overstate your case.

If he agreed with it, he would practice it.

Since he does not practice it, it would appear that his position is that voting for a principled third party candidate has more value than not voting.

This is why I feel your initial statement is misleading. So since you hold Ron Paul's opinion on the matter in such high esteem, I encourage you to rethink your position, whatever "epiphany" you believe you have had and support Chuck Baldwin. (another Ron Paul position btw;))

Ron's agreement is with principled non-voting. It's just not one of his principles. I agree with Ron on "principle" based behavior.

"Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth." --Mohandas K. Gandhi

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 09:17 AM
My wife's previous doctor actually went all in on this philosophy - he was a WWII vet and challenged his requirement to pay taxes and WON, went anti state all the way.

Of course TPTB completely destroyed his practice, forcing him to shut down his OB/GYN clinic and eventually leave the state, much to the disappointment of his patients (he had a thriving practice). I am not sure what ever became of him, but he is certainly a FREE MAN wherever he is.

Freedom isn't free.

The doctor certainly walked his talk. A good man.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:19 AM
Do you pay federal or state income taxes? Do you pay property tax? Do you have a Driver's License? Do you pay sales tax? etc.......

Just wondering if you actually walk your talk. ;) I walk my talk and also submit to the annual extortion by the armed statist thugs, your agents.

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 09:20 AM
Ron's agreement is with principled non-voting. It's just not one of his principles. I agree with Ron on "principle" based behavior.


That seems to be a bit different than what you said previously.


Is Ron's view on this matter mistaken also, since he understands and agrees with Lew and me?

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 09:23 AM
I walk my talk and also submit to the annual extortion by the armed statist thugs, your agents.

Oh.... so you were talking about yourself when you made the previous comment. ;)



You may just want to peruse the 500+ year old "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude", when you get the chance. ;)

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:27 AM
Yeah, that's why Ron is a 10 term Congressman. :rolleyes: I guess you categorize him as "brainwashed" too, eh? How many of his bills have passed and and become law ( so called ) that effect me? How many of his opponent's bills that do effect me negatively has he prevented from passage?

As usual, you may and will GUESS whatever you choose. :p

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:30 AM
That seems to be a bit different than what you said previously. I am not responsible for your mistaken misunderstanding, misinterpretation and "spin" of what I actually say.<IMHO>

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:33 AM
Oh.... so you were talking about yourself when you made the previous comment. ;) Clarification please. :D

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:36 AM
I probably won't vote, but my non-vote is not going to send any kind of effective message since voter turnout will likely be relatively high. I SWAG, 2 HUNDRED MILLION will not vote. ;)

fedup100
10-28-2008, 09:38 AM
So we all need to ask ourselves, "how is that voting or not voting thing working out for us'?

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:43 AM
Well, I was kinda hopiung for a more in depth response as to WHY you feel not voting is a more appropriate response, and more effective, than voting third party. Certainly if that is indeed Ron Paul's position - not just one he accepts as valid but what he encourages - that would encourage me even more to be open to examining the position and its philosophical underpinnings.

Why do you and Lew believe not voting is the answer? Is it because you believe it is all decided by Diebold regardless? Is it because you don't believe we should have elected officials at all? I still disagree with you and agree with LE, but I am open to being converted. Try this RPF thread on for size until you get tired or bored with it. :D I think it probably answers many of your questions and addresses most of your concerns. If not, get back to me. ;)

"No Matter Who Wins an Election, You STILL Lose" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=144344&highlight=elected) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=144344&highlight=elected)2 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=144344&page=2&highlight=elected)3 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=144344&page=3&highlight=elected) ... Last Page (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=144344&page=28&highlight=elected))
MsDoodahs

DAFTEK
10-28-2008, 09:45 AM
The Only Choice on Nov 4th is what the Doc recommended!

http://seekeronos.blogsome.com/images/Baldwin2008.jpg

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:51 AM
So we all need to ask ourselves, "how is that voting or not voting thing working out for us'?


Hasn't two hundred+ years of voting brought us to EXACTLY where we find ourselves today?

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:54 AM
The Only Choice on Nov 4th is what the Doc recommended!

So I assume that Ron Paul is your chosen "shepherd". Correct?

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 09:59 AM
Clarification please. :D

You want us to read a discourse about servitude, but admit that you "submit" to the laws passed by those you view as statists. Yet, you willingly sit on the sidelines and are grouped with the couch potatoes, and not vote, thereby dismissing an opportunity to change that which you hate.

How is that walking your talk?

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:59 AM
No he doesn't. Ron VOTES. He respects Lew's view, but if you recall, he also recommended that we VOTE 3rd party.

And you are bound by Ron's recommendation, because?

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 10:00 AM
Well, if nothing else this thread has certainly enlightened me a bit about TruthWarrior if nothing else....

No disrespect intended I still believe TW to be principled in his views and certainly I don't believe I have a right to force him to act according to my view of "the truth"

However, it does appear that he is a mere mortal after all, and is willing to resort to the same distortions of truth in order to make his case that anyone else is.

I don't always live by it but I try to live by:

If you and I disagree, let's sit down and reason things out. If it is something that is not just a matter of opinion, such as what flavor of ice cream tastes best, one or the other of us is closer to "the truth" than the other (well, not necessarily I suppose both could be equally wrong, but at least honest discussion may expose some weakness in our positions and we both might bet closer to the truth)

Once we enter into a discussion, the goal should not be to "win" (think lawyers, courtrooms etc.) but between both of us attacking the other positions, and hopefully being honest with ourselves either both of us will be led closer to "the truth" or the person who is more mistaken will be able to move somewhat towards the more correct position, or at the very least both parties may continue to disagreee but they can respect each other's honestly held a principled viewpoint.

A couple of very difficult to meet prerequisites need to occur for this to work well.

All parties need to park their egos at the door.

All parties should endeavor to tell "the whole truth" about their position - warts and all. The tendency is if we see weakness in our argument we tend to hide them, and if we see strengths we overstate them or to varying degrees are willing to twist the facts to strengthen our position. This benefits no one. This is one reason I am a TERRIBLE debater. If I see a weakness in my argument, I am likely to point it out and admit it rather than letting the opposition do their job.

Attacks should be limited to ideas, not individuals. Occasionally if someone will not respond to a criticism of their position but continue to wilfully ignore, then perhaps determining that the person is a moron who is more concerned about winning the argument than finding the truth is in order. Definitely NOT saying anyone in this thread qualifies, so far it has been a good discussion I think.

If these prerequisites can be met then it is pretty straightforward to have a good and uplifting discussion beneficial to all.

Premises are stated. Conclusions are drawn. Premises are examined and cross examined. Are the conclusions correctly and logically drawn from the premises?

If the premises are accurate, and the conclusions are logically drawn. those who do not hold the position have really three choices:

1) by far the most popular, maintain your current position, bury your head in the sand.

2) point out additional "mitigating factors" that may alter the conclusions. This is a healthy position as it continues to refine the truths that you have mutually arrived at.

3) Relinquish your position and adopt the "proven" position.

Sorry if this boring you all, I just had an epiphany and had to share :D

Sometimes I need to externalize what is going on inside so I understand myself better.

I also think this is why I would make a terrible politician in the current state of affairs. I think I would be labeled a "waffler" because I am 100% (OK 95%) willing to abandon a bad position for a good one, or at least a better one. It seems like leadership has come to mean you stick to you position regardless of what the facts are telling you.

Matt Collins
10-28-2008, 10:01 AM
I disagree. Voting for someone who isn't a D/R or simply leaving the ballot blank, or even writing someone in will allow for the clear message to be send. One should always vote, even if they turn in a blank ballot.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 10:08 AM
Yeah, that's why he's a U.S. Congressman. :rolleyes:

Note: I find it curious that even Murray Rothbard has written that he didn't classify traditional small government libertarian-conservatives as "statists", but yet you do. Murray got several things wrong.<IMHO>

Whenever you voters want to bring your small government libertarian model around to REALITY, I'm ready.

We can then discuss, where we want to go from there. ;)

Until that time, you are choosing to merely continue to feed and grow the beast.<IMHO>

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 10:11 AM
And you are bound by Ron's recommendation, because?

I happen to agree with him.

We all have to make that choice for ourselves.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 10:13 AM
You non-vote allowed them into office. Its your mess. Right, and I'm responsible for that last nova in Andromeda too. :p :rolleyes: Get REAL!!!

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 10:13 AM
Not voting is not a protest, it's a surrender. (IMHO)

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 10:16 AM
Murray got several things wrong.<IMHO>

Whenever you voters want to bring your small government libertarian model around to REALITY, I'm ready.

We can then discuss, where we want to go from there. ;)

Until that time, you are choosing to merely continue to feed and grow the beast.<IMHO>

TW, one thing about Ron's campaign, is that I had the opportunity to meet and understand a bit better, the views of some principled market anarchists. While we may disagree on the extent of government that should be dismantled, we are so very far away from the level of government that each of us wants, we can work together quite easily in our shared belief that there is WAY too much government.

When and if we get government back to the level intended by our Founders, we will likely have a sticking point. Until that time, I wish we could all try to find some common ground and work together.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 10:19 AM
My wife's previous doctor actually went all in on this philosophy - he was a WWII vet and challenged his requirement to pay taxes and WON, went anti state all the way.

Of course TPTB completely destroyed his practice, forcing him to shut down his OB/GYN clinic and eventually leave the state, much to the disappointment of his patients (he had a thriving practice). I am not sure what ever became of him, but he is certainly a FREE MAN wherever he is.

Freedom isn't free. Tell me about it. I've being paying my ransom and extortion for over 40 years now. What the thugs and goons do with the money is outside of my control. ;)

DAFTEK
10-28-2008, 10:22 AM
So I assume that Ron Paul is your chosen "shepherd". Correct?

1.Scratching your ass from the front is not necessarily as effective as scratching it from the back....

2.Twisting a cats head is evil anyway you look at it....

3.Distorting the bullshit just turns it into sloppy shit....

4.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 10:22 AM
The doctor certainly walked his talk. A good man. Agreed! Some of us have chosen a more difficult walk and mission. ;)

DAFTEK
10-28-2008, 10:25 AM
Not voting is not a protest, it's a surrender. (IMHO)

True but some just have mush in the brain and are like stupid monkeys who cant do anything but yelp, scratch and sniff.... :D

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 10:31 AM
Agreed! Some of us have chosen a more difficult walk and mission. ;)

He walked his talk. By your own admission, you "submit". ;)

You two are very different indeed.

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 10:34 AM
OK see this is straying into the personal attack area where nothing constructive gets accomplished. :)

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 10:35 AM
You want us to read a discourse about servitude, but admit that you "submit" to the laws passed by those you view as statists. Yet, you willingly sit on the sidelines and are grouped with the couch potatoes, and not vote, thereby dismissing an opportunity to change that which you hate.

How is that walking your talk? I have no messiah nor martyr complex to satisfy. What do you do when confronted with overwhelming threats. force, coercion and violence ( the barbarian's way )?

Staying alive is also a significant part of my talk and walk. I require neither your permission, approval nor agreement with my choices.

"The end move in politics, is ALWAYS to pick up the gun." -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Cowlesy
10-28-2008, 10:44 AM
Murray got several things wrong.<IMHO>

Whenever you voters want to bring your small government libertarian model around to REALITY, I'm ready.

We can then discuss, where we want to go from there. ;)

Until that time, you are choosing to merely continue to feed and grow the beast.<IMHO>

Holy crap.

4 sentences.

No quotes.

2 IMHO's.

An epic TW post.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 10:47 AM
Well, if nothing else this thread has certainly enlightened me a bit about TruthWarrior if nothing else....

No disrespect intended I still believe TW to be principled in his views and certainly I don't believe I have a right to force him to act according to my view of "the truth"

However, it does appear that he is a mere mortal after all, and is willing to resort to the same distortions of truth in order to make his case that anyone else is.

I don't always live by it but I try to live by:

If you and I disagree, let's sit down and reason things out. If it is something that is not just a matter of opinion, such as what flavor of ice cream tastes best, one or the other of us is closer to "the truth" than the other (well, not necessarily I suppose both could be equally wrong, but at least honest discussion may expose some weakness in our positions and we both might bet closer to the truth)

Once we enter into a discussion, the goal should not be to "win" (think lawyers, courtrooms etc.) but between both of us attacking the other positions, and hopefully being honest with ourselves either both of us will be led closer to "the truth" or the person who is more mistaken will be able to move somewhat towards the more correct position, or at the very least both parties may continue to disagreee but they can respect each other's honestly held a principled viewpoint.

A couple of very difficult to meet prerequisites need to occur for this to work well.

All parties need to park their egos at the door.

All parties should endeavor to tell "the whole truth" about their position - warts and all. The tendency is if we see weakness in our argument we tend to hide them, and if we see strengths we overstate them or to varying degrees are willing to twist the facts to strengthen our position. This benefits no one. This is one reason I am a TERRIBLE debater. If I see a weakness in my argument, I am likely to point it out and admit it rather than letting the opposition do their job.

Attacks should be limited to ideas, not individuals. Occasionally if someone will not respond to a criticism of their position but continue to wilfully ignore, then perhaps determining that the person is a moron who is more concerned about winning the argument than finding the truth is in order. Definitely NOT saying anyone in this thread qualifies, so far it has been a good discussion I think.

If these prerequisites can be met then it is pretty straightforward to have a good and uplifting discussion beneficial to all.

Premises are stated. Conclusions are drawn. Premises are examined and cross examined. Are the conclusions correctly and logically drawn from the premises?

If the premises are accurate, and the conclusions are logically drawn. those who do not hold the position have really three choices:

1) by far the most popular, maintain your current position, bury your head in the sand.

2) point out additional "mitigating factors" that may alter the conclusions. This is a healthy position as it continues to refine the truths that you have mutually arrived at.

3) Relinquish your position and adopt the "proven" position.

Sorry if this boring you all, I just had an epiphany and had to share :D

Sometimes I need to externalize what is going on inside so I understand myself better.

I also think this is why I would make a terrible politician in the current state of affairs. I think I would be labeled a "waffler" because I am 100% (OK 95%) willing to abandon a bad position for a good one, or at least a better one. It seems like leadership has come to mean you stick to you position regardless of what the facts are telling you. You seem to enjoy volume typing much more than I do. :) I much prefer short and simple. ;)

Would you care to discuss the "Golden Rule", another of my adopted principles? I don't vote to continue and perpetuate your further and continued enslavement to the state, and I'd REALLY appreciate the same in return, from you. ;)

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 10:49 AM
1.Scratching your ass from the front is not necessarily as effective as scratching it from the back....

2.Twisting a cats head is evil anyway you look at it....

3.Distorting the bullshit just turns it into sloppy shit....

4.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: A simple yes or no would have sufficed. ;)

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 10:55 AM
I disagree. Voting for someone who isn't a D/R or simply leaving the ballot blank, or even writing someone in will allow for the clear message to be send. One should always vote, even if they turn in a blank ballot. Participating in the process itself, IS consent.<IMHO>

It just makes you another "player" in corrupt and RIGGED barbarian statist's game of power and control. :(

humanic
10-28-2008, 10:57 AM
Not voting is not a protest, it's a surrender. (IMHO)


Voting 3rd party, like Ron suggested we do, sends a signal that we do not accept what is being doled out
to us in the 2 party system. Our very vote registers that sentiment.

It seems to me that by not voting, we are indistinguishable from those who are just too lazy to get off the sofa to vote. I'm not quite sure what that does to help our cause.

+1

Third Party > No Vote

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 10:59 AM
You seem to enjoy volume typing much more than I do. :) I much prefer short and simple. ;)

I respond that I prefer reasoning to "sound byte" arguments. :p


Would you care to discuss the "Golden Rule", another of my adopted principles? I don't vote to continue and perpetuate your further and continued enslavement to the state, and I'd REALLY appreciate the same in return, from you. ;)

I respect your right to believe that not voting is somehow the most effective way out of this mess (I don't understand it, and am open to you making your case, but I understand that might require some "volume typing". Perhaps a link to someone who you agree with that felt like going to the effort was worth it?

To me it appears that the state our country is in is like being stuck in an automobile that the brake line has been cut. I believe it is best to try and take the wheel and try to steer into a tree rather than letting the car continue to the precipice for which it is headed. Your position seems to be that doing so only legitimizes the criminal(s) who cut the brake line...

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 11:00 AM
He walked his talk. By your own admission, you "submit". ;)

You two are very different indeed. Individuals tend to be like that, "sheeple" party members less so, just more numbers and scratches on the "shephed's" tally board. :p

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 11:01 AM
Participating in the process itself, IS consent.<IMHO>

It just makes you another "player" in corrupt and RIGGED barbarian statist's game of power and control. :(

Now that sentiment I understand. Disagree, but understand.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 11:02 AM
OK see this is straying into the personal attack area where nothing constructive gets accomplished. :)
Welcome to the sociopathic cult called politics. ;) :D

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 11:03 AM
Now that sentiment I understand. Disagree, but understand. :cool: That's progress.<IMHO>

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 11:07 AM
+1

Third Party > No Vote Significant and relevant to the outcome-wise, Third party = No vote.<IMHO> Ya just get a "programmed" warm and fuzzy "team" feeling. ;)

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 11:11 AM
I respond that I prefer reasoning to "sound byte" arguments. :p



I respect your right to believe that not voting is somehow the most effective way out of this mess (I don't understand it, and am open to you making your case, but I understand that might require some "volume typing". Perhaps a link to someone who you agree with that felt like going to the effort was worth it?

To me it appears that the state our country is in is like being stuck in an automobile that the brake line has been cut. I believe it is best to try and take the wheel and try to steer into a tree rather than letting the car continue to the precipice for which it is headed. Your position seems to be that doing so only legitimizes the criminal(s) who cut the brake line... Thanks for asking. :)

For starters, try this one on. ;)

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html (http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html)

Oh, and I find that for some strange reason I agree with Butler Shaffer on LRC ~99% of the time. Butler loves to explain. Perhaps that's why he's a teacher and I'm just a Warrior. :D

Butler Shaffer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html)

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 11:15 AM
Sure, let a few hundred of us not do anything at all. Including trying to run for Congress, and some local offices. The sheep will vote and it is our duty to educate the sheep(if it's possible).

Don't vote, but I don't care. Nothing will change when you don't vote, and for now when you do vote. And besides, would you Anarchists rather live in the current system ,or a system under Ron Paul's platform?

Between you guys it's only "Anarchist Utopia" and the evil state, because it is evil no matter what it does. That's because we allow it to be evil and not listen to the Constitution.

Besides, that's what I thought this movement was about. This isn't an Anarchist forum(not saying that you shouldn't come here). At least try to do something instead of complaining on the internet. Go outside and spread the message. At least vote 3rd party.

We need more folks like Ron to run. And whoever is of age, should try. At least, next election.

D.H.
10-28-2008, 11:16 AM
Significant and relevant to the outcome-wise, Third party = No vote.<IMHO> Ya just get a "programmed" warm and fuzzy "team" feeling. ;)

LOL You are right. I don't post as much as others, but enjoy your POV. Makes me think :o

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 11:29 AM
Sure, let a few hundred of us not do anything at all. Including trying to run for Congress, and some local offices. The sheep will vote and it is our duty to educate the sheep(if it's possible).

Don't vote, but I don't care. Nothing will change when you don't vote, and for now when you do vote. And besides, would you Anarchists rather live in the current system ,or a system under Ron Paul's platform?

Between you guys it's only "Anarchist Utopia" and the evil state, because it is evil no matter what it does. That's because we allow it to be evil and not listen to the Constitution.

Besides, that's what I thought this movement was about. This isn't an Anarchist forum(not saying that you shouldn't come here). At least try to do something instead of complaining on the internet. Go outside and spread the message. At least vote 3rd party.

We need more folks like Ron to run. And whoever is of age, should try. At least, next election. From the outcome of 200 years of voting, I must admit that I am totally underwhelmed by what it has produced, so far.

I thought "small limited government" was the STATED and desired goal. From what I see, I must have made an incorrect assumption.

SHIT HAPPENS! :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 11:32 AM
LOL You are right. I don't post as much as others, but enjoy your POV. Makes me think :o :cool: Thanks! :)

You are then one of the main one's that I'm talking to, for and with. ;)

Matt Collins
10-28-2008, 11:34 AM
Participating in the process itself, IS consent.<IMHO>

It just makes you another "player" in corrupt and RIGGED barbarian statist's game of power and control. :(That's absurd :rolleyes:

What do you suggest then?

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 11:38 AM
That's absurd :rolleyes:

What do you suggest then? "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity" AKA

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif
"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) ;)

D.H.
10-28-2008, 11:46 AM
Don't vote, but I don't care. Nothing will change when you don't vote, and for now when you do vote. And besides, would you Anarchists rather live in the current system ,or a system under Ron Paul's platform?

Between you guys it's only "Anarchist Utopia" and the evil state, because it is evil no matter what it does. That's because we allow it to be evil and not listen to the Constitution.

.

Ok, my Dr. and I had a conversation about this. He does NOT vote. Hasn't even been registered in 10 years. He is hardly an example of "Anarchist Utopia" In fact he is guilty of enabling as he let me put a political sign up on his property :p

He told me he just doesn't care, pays taxes no matter what and doesn't notice a difference no matter who is President. He is not "too lazy to get off of the couch" he mostly works 60-70 hour weeks.

Just to play devil's advocate, so to speak, he is reaping tons of benefits and doesn't complain even though he is in a high (over $250K) tax bracket. He has 5 cars, which is more than he can drive, (one is a totally impractical Hummer). I don't know if I would say he lives in a mansion, but it's definitely a McMansion.
Also his wife doesn't need to work.

What would he WANT to change?

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 11:57 AM
From the outcome of 200 years of voting, I must admit that I am totally underwhelmed by what it has produced, so far.

I thought "small limited government" was the STATED and desired goal. From what I see, I must have made an incorrect assumption.

SHIT HAPPENS! :rolleyes:

Thanks to our digusting friend called Democracy. You should pay a fee to vote.

D.H.
10-28-2008, 11:58 AM
From the outcome of 200 years of voting, I must admit that I am totally underwhelmed by what it has produced, so far.

[:[/B]

T.W. There you go again :) Making good arguements for standing by your principles (I respect that)

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 12:00 PM
Thanks to our digusting friend called Democracy. You should pay a fee to vote. How about if we ONLY tax and govern those that choose to vote?

Works for me! :D

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 12:03 PM
T.W. There you go again :) Making good arguements for standing by your principles (I respect that) Thanks! :)

I respect and appreciate your wisdom, intelligence and good judgment. :D

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 12:04 PM
Ok, my Dr. and I had a conversation about this. He does NOT vote. Hasn't even been registered in 10 years. He is hardly an example of "Anarchist Utopia" In fact he is guilty of enabling as he let me put a political sign up on his property :p
Ok.


He told me he just doesn't care, pays taxes no matter what and doesn't notice a difference no matter who is President. He is not "too lazy to get off of the couch" he mostly works 60-70 hour weeks.

What I meant by lazy is, that people who want to destroy the satus quo don't always fight for it. Maybe, he has more money than the average person. It might not make a diffrence for him.


Just to play devil's advocate, so to speak, he is reaping tons of benefits and doesn't complain even though he is in a high (over $250K) tax bracket. He has 5 cars, which is more than he can drive, (one is a totally impractical Hummer). I don't know if I would say he lives in a mansion, but it's definitely a McMansion.
Also his wife doesn't need to work.

What would he WANT to change?

Maybe, nothing. I'm sure he wouldn't mind keeping more money. Does he not care about our absurd federal budget and deppreciating(sp?) money? What about our absurd trade agreements?

I'm happy for people who have it good, but your income can determine the way you think. Maybe some more taxes won't hurt him, but what about others?

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 12:07 PM
Thanks for asking. :)

For starters, try this one on. ;)

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html (http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html)

Oh, and I find that for some strange reason I agree with Butler Shaffer on LRC ~99% of the time. Butler loves to explain. Perhaps that's why he's a teacher and I'm just a Warrior. :D

Butler Shaffer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html)

I am reading thru the link, the first hair I would like to split is I believe there was intended to be a difference between being ruled, and being presided over by a person who derives whatever power he exerts by the consent of those who are governed. Not saying that is how it is in practice, but at least in theory I don't consider that our form of government gives our elected officials the right to rule.

The president should be the ultimate public servant. Not how it is but it is how the system was designed <IMHO> ;)

Continuing reading....

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 12:08 PM
How about if we ONLY tax and govern those that choose to vote?

Works for me! :D

Sure, but I got a question for you.

If RP was running as a Republican, and was doing well. Would you vote for him? How about if some local Libertarians were running? Your taxes may be high now, and they are working to, say form a flat tax, would you not vote for them? I mean, it's the LP. A party started by Murray N. Rothbard(At least he helped). Surley the local Libertarians aren't evil.

Also, let's say we were in our ideal government. And part of the 10% flat tax was to go to finance people to take your garbage out, work in the sewers, some roads, and to pay our small government a bit, because no one does anything for free.

For each of those points, why wouldn't you want to pay a tax? Just go into detail.
Don't yell "theft" and run off. It doens't work like that on an internet forum, only at the presidential debates. :D

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 12:24 PM
Sure, but I got a question for you.

If RP was running as a Republican, and was doing well. Would you vote for him? How about if some local Libertarians were running? Your taxes may be high now, and they are working to, say form a flat tax, would you not vote for them? I mean, it's the LP. A party started by Murray N. Rothbard(At least he helped). Surley the local Libertarians aren't evil.

Also, let's say we were in our ideal government. And part of the 10% flat tax was to go to finance people to take your garbage out, work in the sewers, some roads, and to pay our small government a bit, because no one does anything for free.

For each of those points, why wouldn't you want to pay a tax? Just go into detail.
Don't yell "theft" and run off. It doens't work like that on an internet forum, only at the presidential debates. :D Like George Carlin, I last voted in 1972. I have NO plans to EVER vote again.

I gotta admit though, that Ron severely and sorely tempted and tested my resolve. ;) Show me a NECESSARY service that can not be more efficiently and economically provided by a voluntary free market solution. It's ALL just people, there is NO government magic.

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 12:34 PM
Like George Carlin, I last voted in 1972. I have NO plans to EVER vote again.

I gotta admit though, that Ron severely and sorely tempted and tested my resolve. ;) Show me a NECESSARY service that can not be more efficiently and economically provided by a free market solution. It's ALL just people, there is NO government magic.

IMO.

The Court System,the garbage men, well I don't deny that the free market can do it. I just think it can be done for cheaper by a local government, same with the sewer system, but that's just my opinion.

I'll get back to you guys in a bit.

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 12:37 PM
IMO.

The Court System,the garbage men, well I don't deny that the free market can do it. I just think it can be done for cheaper by a local government, same with the sewer system, but that's just my opinion.

I'll get back to you guys in a bit.

Or better yet, for the garbage men and road makers.

We can make a voluntary tax for that, and if you don't pay it. You don't get your garbage taken. Unless you can start a company that does it for cheaper, but why wouldn't you voluntarily pay it? Just asking.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 12:41 PM
I am reading thru the link, the first hair I would like to split is I believe there was intended to be a difference between being ruled, and being presided over by a person who derives whatever power he exerts by the consent of those who are governed. Not saying that is how it is in practice, but at least in theory I don't consider that our form of government gives our elected officials the right to rule.

The president should be the ultimate public servant. Not how it is but it is how the system was designed <IMHO> ;)

Continuing reading.... The road to hell is paved with the most optimistic of "good intentions", gone bad.<IMHO> I choose reality over optimism almost every time. ;)

Thanks for doing the reading. :)

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

Zippyjuan
10-28-2008, 12:52 PM
Not voting as an attempt to make a point is a futile activity (or non- activity). It tells the polititians that they can freely ignore you since they only care about people who's votes they hope to collect. The majority of people do not actually vote. A presidential election year can boost participation to above 50% (but not usually by much) while other off-year elections get worse turnout. It might make you feel good to be able to say "well, at least I didn't vote for the bastard!" but it does nothing to get your opinion heard. Participation is the only way to have any hope of influence.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 12:52 PM
IMO.

The Court System,the garbage men, well I don't deny that the free market can do it. I just think it can be done for cheaper by a local government, same with the sewer system, but that's just my opinion.

I'll get back to you guys in a bit.

If they can then why is the force and coercion at virtual gunpoint necessary? There are many market alternative adjudication and refuse collection services available. The government is even farming out prisons now to the private sector in order to save money. :D

Think US Postal Service vs. FedEx, UPS, etc. for another obvious service option example.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 12:59 PM
Not voting as an attempt to make a point is a futile activity (or non- activity). It tells the polititians that they can freely ignore you since they only care about people who's votes they hope to collect. The majority of people do not actually vote. A presidential election year can boost participation to above 50% (but not usually by much) while other off-year elections get worse turnout. It might make you feel good to be able to say "well, at least I didn't vote for the bastard!" but it does nothing to get your opinion heard. Participation is the only way to have any hope of influence. What % of the voters preferences are routinely IGNORED? Looks like around 50% now, if not much more. What MINORITY half or less CHOSE this current D.C. monstrosity?

Zippyjuan
10-28-2008, 01:08 PM
There is no guarantee that if you vote, candidates will heed you. That is impossible since people vote on both sides of every issue. But if you do not vote you DO guarantee that they will not care what you think about anything.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 01:10 PM
Or better yet, for the garbage men and road makers.

We can make a voluntary tax for that, and if you don't pay it. You don't get your garbage taken. Unless you can start a company that does it for cheaper, but why wouldn't you voluntarily pay it? Just asking. As an adult intelligent human being I absolutely detest being ORDERED and FORCED to do anything. The folks doing the ordering and forcing are no more competent nor able decision makers than I am, especially when it comes to me and mine, nor do they even care much or enough. :p :rolleyes:

CaliforniaGold
10-28-2008, 01:12 PM
Not voting misleads TPTB into thinking we are apathetic.

That is the wrong message to send.

We DO care! We can show that by voting third party ( I am voting for Baldwin)

This shows them that we were at the ballot box and rejected them out of hand.

They would fear an active resistant voter more then an apathetic one.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 01:15 PM
There is no guarantee that if you vote, candidates will heed you. That is impossible since people vote on both sides of every issue. But if you do not vote you DO guarantee that they will not care what you think about anything. Those odds REALLY suck. PASS!

I've NEVER seen ANY evidence that ANY of them even REALLY give a shit about what I think or want. BTW, the feeling is mutual.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 01:25 PM
Not voting misleads TPTB into thinking we are apathetic.

That is the wrong message to send.

We DO care! We can show that by voting third party ( I am voting for Baldwin)

This shows them that we were at the ballot box and rejected them out of hand.

They would fear an active resistant voter more then an apathetic one.
Screw TPTB, I don't really give a shit about what THEY want either. Who made them GOD? Bring 'em on, I'll not go quietly into their dark night either. BTW, TPTB have done their homework on the human species.<IMHO>

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/nwo-logo_130x.gif

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 01:36 PM
"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are." -- H.L. Mencken

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 01:38 PM
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." ~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State

mport1
10-28-2008, 01:51 PM
Good article by Lew as usual.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 01:57 PM
Good article by Lew as usual. I kinda liked it. :D

LibertyEagle
10-28-2008, 01:57 PM
Individuals tend to be like that, "sheeple" party members less so, just more numbers and scratches on the "shephed's" tally board. :p

Nah, some of us try to change the system. Others, just "submit" and complain. :p

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 02:04 PM
"The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle." -- Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin

mediahasyou
10-28-2008, 02:05 PM
Ron Paul: Don't Vote for Me (http://www.nolanchart.com/article5254.html)

Wendi
10-28-2008, 02:05 PM
I agree with Rockwell's sentiment, but as long as third party, independent, write in, etc. are still options (albeit not viable), I think we should use our votes for those instead of not voting at all. It still sends the same message, that we are tired of the two rigged-party "choices," without voluntarily surrendering one of the last pretenses of "rights" that they haven't already taken from us.

josephadel_3
10-28-2008, 02:06 PM
Truth Warrior is right. By voting, you pledge allegiance to the oligarchy of blood and fascism. When you cast a vote, you say "I agree. this system works." You know what. Fuck the constitution. It's failed miserably to limit government. It did okay up until Lincoln, but we'll never return to it, never recover. "Beyond redemption" is so accurate. The media prevents revolution in the hearts of men and women, creating a sense of complacency. When people vote, they exercise complacency under the delusion they are changing something.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 02:06 PM
ron paul: Don't vote for me (http://www.nolanchart.com/article5254.html) Done!!! :)

Matt Collins
10-28-2008, 02:24 PM
"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul. Good way to avoid answering the question. So if people shouldn't vote, what should they then do instead? :rolleyes:


I am waiting on a serious answer to this.

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 02:30 PM
If they can then why is the force and coercion at virtual gunpoint necessary? There are many market alternative adjudication and refuse collection services available. The government is even farming out prisons now to the private sector in order to save money. :D

Think US Postal Service vs. FedEx, UPS, etc. for another obvious service option example.

I don't agree with the monopolization of the Postal Service.

I'm talking about local community taxes. The only thing I believe the government can provide is a court system, and small governments taking over the sewer system in a city, but that's a small department in my opinion. I would prefer government(community) taking some roads, and some other things.

But that's just my minarchist opinion.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 02:30 PM
I agree with Rockwell's sentiment, but as long as third party, independent, write in, etc. are still options (albeit not viable), I think we should use our votes for those instead of not voting at all. It still sends the same message, that we are tired of the two rigged-party "choices," without voluntarily surrendering one of the last pretenses of "rights" that they haven't already taken from us. I guess that I am just missing the agreement with Rockwell's sentiment part in your post. ;)

Abstain From Beans (http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/beans.php)

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 02:37 PM
I don't agree with the monopolization of the Postal Service.

I'm talking about local community taxes. The only thing I believe the government can provide is a court system, and small governments taking over the sewer system in a city, but that's a small department in my opinion. I would prefer government(community) taking some roads, and some other things.

But that's just my minarchist opinion.
"An anarchist is anyone that wants less government than you do." ;)

To the GOP, Ron Paul and the RPF folks are anarchists.<IMHO>

The differences between anarchy and minarchy are minuscule and moot as long as the state continues to grow.

Zippyjuan
10-28-2008, 02:41 PM
Good way to avoid answering the question. So if people shouldn't vote, what should they then do instead? :rolleyes:


I am waiting on a serious answer to this.
Just bitch and moan I guess. If you do nothing to try to change it then you are tacitly supporting it. Not voting against the system is voting for it. Buying a few ounces of gold and posting on a forum does not change anything.

Get active. Get groups of people together to spread your ideas. Start petition drives to get issues on the ballot. Everybody is waiting for somebody else to do it for them. "Just wait until the economy collapses. They things will change! Riots in the streets! New government!" People don't vote for third party candidates in part because nobody else votes for them.

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 02:41 PM
"An anarchist is anyone that wants less government than you do." ;)

To the GOP, Ron Paul and the RPF folks are anarchists.<IMHO>

The differences between anarchy and minarchy are minuscule and moot as long as the state continues to grow.

An anarchist is anybody who wants to abolish the state, for good.

I don't care about the current GOP. They're not the brightest folks.

mediahasyou
10-28-2008, 02:42 PM
Good way to avoid answering the question. So if people shouldn't vote, what should they then do instead? :rolleyes:


I am waiting on a serious answer to this.


Nonpolitical Libertarian Strategies:
1. Voluntaryism - People simply withdraw consent through nonvoting, taxes, and will not consent to being governed by force.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/073.php

Example: Colonials in America declared their Independence of England and no longer gave consent to their governors.

2. Agorism - People use blackmarkets to weaken the government. Markets produce better products than the state so people choose markets to do the services of the state. Blackmarkets cannot be taxed which weakens the state.
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/nlm/nlm5.html

Example: Agorism in colonial America helped them bring about revolution through ignoring laws such as the navigation acts and other taxes.

3. Passive Resistance - People passively resist the government. Police are known to initiate force against the innocent and nonviolent. Through media and the internet, the populace will see the testimony against the state.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/027b.php

Example: Gandhi in Indian Revolution.

4. Education - People through learning and becoming smart tend to rebel. This is exactly why the slaves in America started to rebel. As a slave became smarter, that slave was worth more. However, that slave also attempted to escape more because he was smarter. Thus, slavery was dubbed the perculior institution.

Example: The enlightenment sparked the most revolutions in recorded history throughout the world.

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 02:43 PM
Like George Carlin, I last voted in 1972. I have NO plans to EVER vote again.

I gotta admit though, that Ron severely and sorely tempted and tested my resolve. ;) Show me a NECESSARY service that can not be more efficiently and economically provided by a voluntary free market solution. It's ALL just people, there is NO government magic.

Like Ron Paul I agree with you in principle.

What I don't agree with is your action (or lack thereof) is going to get you from point a to point b. ouch that sounds an awful lot like the ends justify the means.

On my trip thru cliche-ville I ran into another one - all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

To me not voting is similar to voting "present" rather than voting NO! If men were angels then your idylic viewpoint might work, but as things currently stand, government is a necessary evil and the rights of the minority need to be protected from the will of the majority, government must be bound by the chains of the Constitution, etc. It is here that we have failed, we were complacent and have lost our freedom. You call yourself a warrior, then fight! Blaming people that voted for getting us into this mess is cute and all, but I really fell that it is sticking your head in the sand and trying to ignore problems out of existence.

In your anarchist wonderland, the same bad motives are going to exist, are people going to suddenly not try to dominate others when they get the opportunity? Or will only the types of opportunities to dominate change?

cheapseats
10-28-2008, 02:47 PM
Presuming he lives, it seems virtually impossible that John McCain could successfully run for re-election.

Presuming he lives, it seems substantially likely that Barack Obama could successfully run for re-election.

Regardless how lousy circumstances are and how little one is to blame for them, it remains noble to minimize losses.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 02:50 PM
Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/ (http://www.voluntaryist.com/) ;)

Andrew-Austin
10-28-2008, 02:51 PM
Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/ (http://www.voluntaryist.com/) ;)


Thanks for the spam, but as you have posted shit like this a thousand times before, people already know what voluntaryism is here.


Posts: 10,963

80% of it is shit.

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 02:51 PM
Nonpolitical Libertarian Strategies:
1. Voluntaryism - People simply withdraw consent through nonvoting, taxes, and will not consent to being governed by force.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/073.php


Example: Colonials in America declared their Independence of England and no longer gave consent to their governors.

A lot of people love giving their money to the helpful government!


Agorism - People use blackmarkets to weaken the government. Markets produce better products than the state so people choose markets to do the services of the state. Blackmarkets cannot be taxed which weakens the state.
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/nlm/nlm5.html
Example: Agorism in colonial America helped them bring about revolution through ignoring laws such as the navigation acts and other taxes.


Not that I'm against Agorism, but Prohibition and the War on Drugs has killed many. I don't always trust my fellow man. That's why I believe in the rule of law.


3. Passive Resistance - People passively resist the government. Police are known to initiate force against the innocent and nonviolent. Through media and the internet, the populace will see the testimony against the state.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/027b.php

Example: Gandhi in Indian Revolution.

We're still the minority.


4. Education - People through learning and becoming smart tend to rebel. This is exactly why the slaves in America started to rebel. As a slave became smarter, that slave was worth more. However, that slave also attempted to escape more because he was smarter. Thus, slavery was dubbed the perculior institution.

Example: The enlightenment sparked the most revolutions in recorded history throughout the world.


Some people can be educated, but that doesn't mean they're smart.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 02:53 PM
Good way to avoid answering the question. So if people shouldn't vote, what should they then do instead? :rolleyes:


I am waiting on a serious answer to this. Without YOUR dishonest contextomy you had my answer....... seriously. :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 02:55 PM
An anarchist is anybody who wants to abolish the state, for good.

I don't care about the current GOP. They're not the brightest folks.
And you want to keep the state around for what? Nostalgia? Old times sake? EVIL? :p

mediahasyou
10-28-2008, 02:58 PM
If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.

take notes.

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 02:59 PM
And you want to keep the state around for what? Nostalgia? Old times sake? EVIL? :p

What I want a small state for?

The same reason, as the Founders wanted it. The free market comic on the island is a good idea too.

I'm telling you, the enemy is Beaurocratic Democracy.

D.H.
10-28-2008, 03:11 PM
Maybe, nothing. I'm sure he wouldn't mind keeping more money. Does he not care about our absurd federal budget and deppreciating(sp?) money? What about our absurd trade agreements?

I'm happy for people who have it good, but your income can determine the way you think. Maybe some more taxes won't hurt him, but what about others?

He might get involved but only through pressure from the AMA if he thought there would be universal health care. He really doesn't care, but I worked for Dr's during the whole Hillary thing and they came out en masse. The fact that they are not this year though both candidates are proposing change shows me it won't be big change.

The doctor I spoke of doesn't care about the budget because it would take away from his practice if he worried about that stuff. We can get upset all day ourselves and it won't change it. I just wanted to throw an example out there of one of the many people I know who are very intelligent, productive citizens who wouldn't really be called apathetic from a societal standpoint but still don't vote. He's quite generous too and offers a sliding scale for patients while still doing quite well himself.

He and Truth Warrier may have different reasoning, but I don't disrepect my Dr. for obvious reasons so I would not have a double standard here. In fact TW has studied this and is giving an educated opinion and there is a LOT more to be said for that.

This isn't directed at you Orlanater, I am now just making a general statement;

I am surprised that so many read that article and jump on TW for making in essence a protest vote when they are doing the very same thing themselves by voting 3rd party or RP. The world is not going to change on Nov 5th either way, everyone recognizes that; it's a matter of voting your conscience. Why is his position to be attacked when it has the same outcome? Are people implying that it should be layed at his door and he is partly to blame for not being involved? There sure is post after post basically saying that. If he can live with it why does it bother others? That really doesn't make sense when you think about it.

SimpleName
10-28-2008, 03:24 PM
I've been torn between these two thoughts for a while. Should I vote for a third party candidate (none of which I truly would like as president) or should I simply not vote at all. Certainly not voting would be the most principled thing to do in my mind. But at the same time, it is not very strategic at all. If only Dr. Paul ran as a third party candidate, we could all cast a vote for him and wouldn't be so divided. I'm still not sure what the heck to do.

As for Lew, he is a mysterious character. Not voting for Ron in the primaries is exactly the wrong thing to do. What if the voting systems aren't corrupt? What if they are still accurate in some way? You are going to give up on elections and just have corrupt people rule the country for hundreds of years just to prove a point? It doesn't make sense to me really. EDIT: There is actually quite a few libertarians on the ballot...hmm...I guess I will be voting. HAHAHAHA!

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 04:00 PM
Like Ron Paul I agree with you in principle.

Without the associated action or inaction how would one ever be able to tell that your agree?

What I don't agree with is your action (or lack thereof) is going to get you from point a to point b. ouch that sounds an awful lot like the ends justify the means.

I may not make it to b AKA CIVILIZATION. Our species may not either unless we outgrow "governmentality", PDQ.

On my trip thru cliche-ville I ran into another one - all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for too many to do the WRONG things in the WRONG way for too many of the WRONG reasons. Voting is a WRONG thing.<IMHO>

To me not voting is similar to voting "present" rather than voting NO! If men were angels then your idylic viewpoint might work, but as things currently stand, government is a necessary evil and the rights of the minority need to be protected from the will of the majority, government must be bound by the chains of the Constitution, etc. It is here that we have failed, we were complacent and have lost our freedom. You call yourself a warrior, then fight! Blaming people that voted for getting us into this mess is cute and all, but I really fell that it is sticking your head in the sand and trying to ignore problems out of existence.

If man is basically good he needs no government. If man is basically evil, he dares not have any government.

Geeze guy, what do you think that I am doing here?

In your anarchist wonderland, the same bad motives are going to exist, are people going to suddenly not try to dominate others when they get the opportunity? Or will only the types of opportunities to dominate change?

I've never promised ANYONE a Utopia. I merely argue the comparative advantage case. After 6,000 years of trying to perfect it, government is merely a failed concept. I don't know about you, but that seems like more than enough of a trial period.

It's WAY past time to move on and try something else that just may work and be far less destructive and tragic, before that barbaric human institution that you endorse and favor kills us all.


"Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false." -- Bertrand Russell

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 04:04 PM
Thanks for the spam, but as you have posted shit like this a thousand times before, people already know what voluntaryism is here.



80% of it is shit. And 100% of you is merely brainless insignificant twit.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 04:09 PM
What I want a small state for?

The same reason, as the Founders wanted it. The free market comic on the island is a good idea too.

Their technologies were pretty primitive compared to now. We can no longer afford to take the species MEGADEATH risks.<IMHO>

I'm telling you, the enemy is Beaurocratic Democracy.

Whose lame brain dead invention is/was that? Were the people all just clamoring for it?


:rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 04:16 PM
I've been torn between these two thoughts for a while. Should I vote for a third party candidate (none of which I truly would like as president) or should I simply not vote at all. Certainly not voting would be the most principled thing to do in my mind. But at the same time, it is not very strategic at all. If only Dr. Paul ran as a third party candidate, we could all cast a vote for him and wouldn't be so divided. I'm still not sure what the heck to do.

As for Lew, he is a mysterious character. Not voting for Ron in the primaries is exactly the wrong thing to do. What if the voting systems aren't corrupt? What if they are still accurate in some way? You are going to give up on elections and just have corrupt people rule the country for hundreds of years just to prove a point? It doesn't make sense to me really. EDIT: There is actually quite a few libertarians on the ballot...hmm...I guess I will be voting. HAHAHAHA! What kind of people do you think have been running the governments for the last 6,000 years? Gimme a break! :rolleyes:

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html (http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html)

unless all of your barbarian friends disagree with it, that is. :p :rolleyes:

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 04:19 PM
He might get involved but only through pressure from the AMA if he thought there would be universal health care. He really doesn't care, but I worked for Dr's during the whole Hillary thing and they came out en masse. The fact that they are not this year though both candidates are proposing change shows me it won't be big change.

The doctor I spoke of doesn't care about the budget because it would take away from his practice if he worried about that stuff. We can get upset all day ourselves and it won't change it. I just wanted to throw an example out there of one of the many people I know who are very intelligent, productive citizens who wouldn't really be called apathetic from a societal standpoint but still don't vote. He's quite generous too and offers a sliding scale for patients while still doing quite well himself.

He and Truth Warrier may have different reasoning, but I don't disrepect my Dr. for obvious reasons so I would not have a double standard here. In fact TW has studied this and is giving an educated opinion and there is a LOT more to be said for that.

This isn't directed at you Orlanater, I am now just making a general statement;

I am surprised that so many read that article and jump on TW for making in essence a protest vote when they are doing the very same thing themselves by voting 3rd party or RP. The world is not going to change on Nov 5th either way, everyone recognizes that; it's a matter of voting your conscience. Why is his position to be attacked when it has the same outcome? Are people implying that it should be layed at his door and he is partly to blame for not being involved? There sure is post after post basically saying that. If he can live with it why does it bother others? That really doesn't make sense when you think about it.


I want to vote for Barr because I want a stronger LP.

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 04:20 PM
:rolleyes:

The lazy and unproductive, yes.

+ Our new social liberal cult.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 04:23 PM
The lazy and unproductive, yes.

+ Our new social liberal cult. Government employees? Yep! Fuck 'em! :p

josephadel_3
10-28-2008, 04:33 PM
What I want a small state for?

The same reason, as the Founders wanted it. The free market comic on the island is a good idea too.

I'm telling you, the enemy is Beaurocratic Democracy.

The experiment is over. The Republic failed and it's never coming back. Don't vote and become an anarchist.

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 04:47 PM
TW, I really guess my problem is this:

Just suppose that more and more poeple come around to your way of thinking. Say we get 95% of people "not to vote". To my thinking this means that the 95% are now getting "ruled" or have "submitted to" the will of the 5%.

There is no ultimatum, no either this or that, there are infinite choices out there, and yours is certainly one of them.

I will continue to give this voluntaryism a look, it's certainly an interesting concept.

You believe that voting is just self deceptive that we have any control on things (at least that is my impression of what you believe) to me your path is just self-defeatist. Education is a great tool and I sure believe we can have a lot more inflluence thru education than we could ever have in the voting booth. Like you, I think not just educating, but educating to do the right thing is important.

You say in 6,000 years government has proved an utter failure. I disagree, it took 5800 years to come up with the experiment that was the USA, we "had a Republic if we could keep it" and we didn't - yes I know we weren't the first Republic, but I would say a Republic has never failed, as a Republic, it is when the citizens allow their Republic to be corrupted into something else that it fails.

Matt Collins
10-28-2008, 04:50 PM
Without YOUR dishonest contextomy you had my answer....... seriously. :rolleyes:So now your calling me names? What did I say that was dishonest?

The_Orlonater
10-28-2008, 05:19 PM
The experiment is over. The Republic failed and it's never coming back. Don't vote and become an anarchist.

Your response failed to convince me and responses like that will always. All my life I will fight for a Republic. Even if I was an anarchist, it'd be a lot harder to turn the current system into an anarchist system, rather than a smaller minarchist system.

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 05:58 PM
So now your calling me names? What did I say that was dishonest?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

And then LIED that I hadn't answered your question.

Just hit the Quote button and then type your reply beneath it. :rolleyes: RPF Posting 101.

mport1
10-28-2008, 06:00 PM
Stefan Molyneux on voting - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM

Truth Warrior
10-28-2008, 06:14 PM
TW, I really guess my problem is this:

Just suppose that more and more poeple come around to your way of thinking. Say we get 95% of people "not to vote". To my thinking this means that the 95% are now getting "ruled" or have "submitted to" the will of the 5%.

You can make up any hypothetical "what if's" that you want, speculations are about a penny a truckload. Why not just make it .1% of a percent left voting? They HAVE to get themselves not voting, just becuase it's stupid to continue, like in 2008. A free society is created one by one. I've found no other way. There is NO guarantee, just a potential shot at survival. Or we can just let the lunatics and other sociopaths ultimately just drive us all to extinction. Nature will just chalk us up as a another failure, and move on to the next experiment.

There is no ultimatum, no either this or that, there are infinite choices out there, and yours is certainly one of them.

Just laugh at and ignore the bastards, like I usually do now. What are they gonna do, kill off or imprison 95% of the population?

I will continue to give this voluntaryism a look, it's certainly an interesting concept.

:cool:

You believe that voting is just self deceptive that we have any control on things (at least that is my impression of what you believe) to me your path is just self-defeatist. Education is a great tool and I sure believe we can have a lot more inflluence thru education than we could ever have in the voting booth. Like you, I think not just educating, but educating to do the right thing is important.

The government does whatever it damn well pleases that it thinks it can get away with. Case in point, killing the CONstitution. Who's stopping them?

You say in 6,000 years government has proved an utter failure. I disagree, it took 5800 years to come up with the experiment that was the USA, we "had a Republic if we could keep it" and we didn't - yes I know we weren't the first Republic, but I would say a Republic has never failed, as a Republic, it is when the citizens allow their Republic to be corrupted into something else that it fails.

Actually I called it a failed concept. It's records scream for themselves.

Tell that one to the Roman Empire.

You obviously DID NOT finish reading the linked article I provided you, if you still believe that BS.


'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for 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." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

Original_Intent
10-28-2008, 07:21 PM
'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for 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." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

The red is what I have issue with.

Certainly the Constitution had the power to prevent it, and has the power to overturn it - but not alone. How could ANY document prevent government from doing anything? Enough people must demand that it is followed.

We have been lied to that we can't fight city hall, and too many people have bought it. Media has zombified too many.

josephadel_3
10-28-2008, 07:25 PM
Your response failed to convince me and responses like that will always. All my life I will fight for a Republic. Even if I was an anarchist, it'd be a lot harder to turn the current system into an anarchist system, rather than a smaller minarchist system.

I didn't expect it to. The chances of a minarchist and anarchist system are equally unlikely, that is until everyone rejects the current vehicle for changing things, which is voting. Start a revolution of the mind and heart, and the system will be overhauled completely and won't return to any past ideal such as a Constitutional Republic, but will be truly revolutionary.

Andrew-Austin
10-28-2008, 08:05 PM
And 100% of you is merely brainless insignificant twit.


Thanks for replying to my post, and thus recognizing the existence/validity of my opinion. By merely responding, even though it was a negative one, you have endorsed me.

Yes, that is basically the same kind of bullshit logic you use when it comes to voting and the state. I could fucking write in Murray Rothbard or Jesus Christ and you would say I'm endorsing the state.

I'm brainless? I actually bother to think about issues without running to Lew Rockwell and copy-pasting whatever the fuck he says. I'm capable of considering alternate points of view without screaming "barbarian" and so forth. And its probably gotten me a lot farther too, in terms of converting others to libertarianism.

I believe you have posted the quote: "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Well has it never dawned on you how that quote might just apply to Mr. Truth Warrior himself? Probably not.

yoshimaroka
10-29-2008, 12:10 AM
The Truth About Voting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 04:06 AM
No Matter Who Wins an Election, You Still Lose

Why Voting Sucks!
by Wolf Knight

Contrary to popular opinion, I always have a "voice" regardless of whether or not I vote. To counter the oft-quoted "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.", I say that if someone put the lying scumbag in office, then HE is the one who should keep his mouth shut. By not voting, I actually achieve more than the millions of sheeple could ever hope to accomplish. Why, you ask?

First of all, let's take a look at the utter fallacy of the concepts of democracy and voting. Of course, I lump the two of these together because they are pretty much synonymous.

Suppose that there was a simple vote being taken on the issue of whether or not theft is ethical. If 51% of the people voted that armed robbery was okay, does that make the 49% "minority" wrong even though they voted that theft is unethical? It may not seem fair, and believe it or not, it isn't. In any instance of voting, however, the validity of the issue is moot. No matter what the dispute is over, the "majority" is always right, and the "minority" is always wrong, even if the "majority" voted in favor of something which you found appalling.

In the context of Presidential elections and to put it quite simply, voting is nothing more than a head count. It proves nor accomplishes nothing other than giving politicians their so-called "legitimacy" and an excuse to lord it over their subjects. Consider even further that it is the ELECTORAL vote, and not the public vote which determines who becomes supreme ruler of the United States. Isn't it nice to know that Congress can override the arbitrary decision of the "majority" based on the whims of your friendly State Representatives and Senators, the ratio of blues to grays in the House and Senate, and/or other niggling factors?

Secondly, by not voting, I am assuming responsibility for myself and my life. Much to the chagrin of many State-worshipping dolts and the organized mafia of lawyers, politicians, and armed thugs to do their bidding, I am hardly affected by what goes on in the political arena. Sans a few exceptions, how is it I'm affected by so-called "laws" which I have no use for or obey, and a "government" that I don't even acknowledge?

I fail to see how being an individual and responsible for my own life and affairs is detrimental to myself. I'm sorry, but I don't need some monolithic bureaucracy to do my thinking for me or to tell me what to do. I know better than to steal from others, exploit people, harm them physically for any reason other than self defense, etc. The only "laws" I need are those that are in my heart, and I have no wish to continue a vicious cycle of tyranny and theft by voting. Also, I need not raise my hands against the bureaucratic idol to topple it. I do more than adequate damage by simply refusing to hold it up like the rest of the herd. I have no need for violence or promoting "revolution"; once there are no longer enough people to hold Leviathan up, he'll topple on his own and crush his remaining supporters beneath him.

Thirdly, and this is potentially the most controversial part of this article, "government" is no different than the concept of "god." Think about it... We have a "deity" ("government" ) being proclaimed as our only "savior" and represented by a "clergy" that "shepherds" us (politicians), the "one true religion" which is "the only path to salvation and true happiness" (patr[id]iotism and blind obedience to "government" ), a poorly written and often abused "Bible" (the Constitution and BoR), "apologists" to defend the "teachings of god" (lawyers), and "crusaders" to defend the "church" and enforce the "will" and "teachings of god" against the "infidels" (police/military).

And you thought Iran was bad...

Instead of some glorious and infallible entity, "government" is, as I have said, nothing more than an organized mafia of lawyers, politicians, and armed thugs to do their bidding. Simply put, it has ZERO "authority," and its only REAL power comes from those who delegate their rights and freedoms to said mafia in return for lackluster rewards and empty promises subject to arbitrary change.

Before you go presenting your argument for "government" to me, think of how useless it is for a fundamentalist Christian to present the concept of "god" to an Atheist. Plus, like it or not, any attempt to justify or explain "government" is no different than Christian proselytizing.

And no, I'm not an Atheist. That was just an analogy.

Democracy was oh-so-accurately defined as "three wolves and a sheep sitting at a table and voting on what to have for dinner." Needless to say, voting never gave ANY power to the individual. Voting is, in fact, an admission of weakness. Instead of exercising your rights as a self-ruling individual, rights which you were BORN with and not granted by antiquated toilet paper on display in the National Archives, you're delegating them to the member of a priestly caste (politicians) who is just as imperfect as everyone else and more often than not a lying scumbag who'll say or promise anything just to get into public office.

Shepherds can only fleece docile sheep and farmers can only milk obedient cows. By voting and lending credence to the nonexistent "legitimacy" of these politicians (while delegating your rights and freedom to them in the process), you're essentially submitting yourself to their control. Whether you know it or not, those manacles on your hands are by YOUR OWN doing, and YOU hold the "key" to them in YOUR pocket. Whether you choose to unlock them and cast them aside is your choice, but if you want REAL freedom, have the courage to SEIZE it. As for me, I threw off the manacles long ago. In my mind's eye, "government" is no different than the Judeo-Christian "god," and democracy is the antithesis of freedom.

To be perfectly honest with you, the saddest thing I have to live with is the fact that many people are still in the early stages of human evolutional development, thus NEEDING some kind of "guidance" from an omnipotent and infallible entity of some kind, be it religious or non-religious. As much as I hate to say this, sheep NEED shepherds and slaves NEED masters. However, I'll be damned if a wolf like me is told that I need one when I am already MY OWN master! If you still think that voting is the only way of obtaining freedom, fine. I can't tell you what to do or what decisions to make. If you want to be lead by the hand like a little toddler by some capricious and parasitic "government," that's your choice. Not mine.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040603041641/http://www.nogov4me.net/whyvoting.htm

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 09:18 AM
bump ................................... just for the hell of it. :D

FindLiberty
10-29-2008, 09:24 AM
This year especially there is no lesser of two evils. There is socialism or fascism. The true American spirit should guide every voter to have no part of either.

Vote 3rd party or stay home... That choice is even more difficult now that the price of gas has eased a bit, no doubt due to government manipulation.

Bern
10-29-2008, 09:42 AM
Not voting will accomplish nothing. Your lack of a vote will not be noticed by anyone.

Being petulant and telling people not to vote is stupid. There is only one way to make you voice heard.

Doktor_Jeep
10-29-2008, 09:53 AM
I put my mail-in ballot into the shredder last night.

Sort of sad. Not for the ballot, but for what the whole thing was mean to mean, and how such an failure it has become.

Democracy is like getting to decide who sleeps with your wife, and you still have to pay for the hotel room.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 09:53 AM
Vote 3rd party or stay home... That choice is even more difficult now that the price of gas has eased a bit, no doubt due to government manipulation.


Confessions of a Former Voter (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hensley1.html)
Phil Hensley on his rehabilitation.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 09:55 AM
I put my mail-in ballot into the shredder last night.

Sort of sad. Not for the ballot, but for what the whole thing was mean to mean, and how such an failure it has become.

Democracy is like getting to decide who sleeps with your wife, and you still have to pay for the hotel room.

"Democracy is the road to socialism." -- Karl Marx

Feenix566
10-29-2008, 10:05 AM
Not voting accomplishes nothing. Do you really think the party activists in the Republican and Democratic parties give a shit about the fact that most people who are eligable to vote don't do it? They couldn't care less. All they care about is winning.

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 10:07 AM
Ron Paul suggested we VOTE for a 3rd party candidate so that our dissent against the 2 party system would be heard.

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 10:08 AM
"Democracy is the road to socialism." -- Karl Marx

Well, it's a good thing isn't it, that our Founders gave us a Republic.

ItsTime
10-29-2008, 10:09 AM
Not voting will accomplish nothing. Your lack of a vote will not be noticed by anyone.

Being petulant and telling people not to vote is stupid. There is only one way to make you voice heard.


Ron Paul suggested we VOTE for a 3rd party candidate so that our dissent against the 2 party system would be heard.

qft. I must say not voting this year will have everyone thinking our movement is dead.

DAFTEK
10-29-2008, 10:10 AM
RON PAUL FORUM BANNER! lol :D

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CNOEq76s5MjVThDYBRhPMgiZGITa9BHMrw (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=B6EixhI8ISdvhLpr0ygWK-cjuAuCz5HmQidmBCsCNtwHAmgwQARgBIN_O5QM4AFCb7rKgBWD J7oKI8KOsFaAB9KKT-QOyARV3d3cucm9ucGF1bGZvcnVtcy5jb226AQk3Mjh4OTBfYXP IAQLaAThodHRwOi8vd3d3LnJvbnBhdWxmb3J1bXMuY29tL3NlY XJjaC5waHA_c2VhcmNoaWQ9Mjc4NzIxMYACAcgCvMGMBKgDAcg DBYgEAZAEAZgEAA&num=1&adurl=http://www.sodahead.com/question/102482/%3Flink%3DGCPA_McCainObama_q102482_lb1&client=ca-pub-7964806759732420&nm=2)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:13 AM
Ron Paul's Opening Statement at the National Press Club Today

Posted by Lew Rockwell at September 10, 2008 08:55 AM


The American Majority
Ron Paul

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. - Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope
The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.

We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.

This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction—the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person—the party’s nominee.

This was never intended by the Constitution.

Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess. [ Emphasis added ]

Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils. (Via Campaign for Liberty)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...2773.html#more (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022773.html#more)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:17 AM
Not voting will accomplish nothing. Your lack of a vote will not be noticed by anyone.

Being petulant and telling people not to vote is stupid. There is only one way to make you voice heard.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022773.html#more (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022773.html#more)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:18 AM
Not voting accomplishes nothing. Do you really think the party activists in the Republican and Democratic parties give a shit about the fact that most people who are eligable to vote don't do it? They couldn't care less. All they care about is winning.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022773.html#more (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022773.html#more)

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 10:19 AM
The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)-- Ron Paul

Yup, Ron was pretty darn clear. He thinks we should VOTE.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:19 AM
Ron Paul suggested we VOTE for a 3rd party candidate so that our dissent against the 2 party system would be heard.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022773.html#more (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022773.html#more)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:21 AM
Well, it's a good thing isn't it, that our Founders gave us a Republic.

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:25 AM
qft. I must say not voting this year will have everyone thinking our movement is dead. Unless you CHOOSE to view not voting as a non-violent REVOLUTIONARY action. BTW, everyone will think whatever they choose to think. That is outside of our ability to control.<IMHO>

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:27 AM
Yup, Ron was pretty darn clear. He thinks we should VOTE.

"Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess." -- Ron Paul http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022773.html#more

Original_Intent
10-29-2008, 10:31 AM
"Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess." -- Ron Paul http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022773.html#more

That's a bit different than just sitting the election out.

If you voluntaryists all got together on election day and made a big deal about how you weren't going to participate in a corrupt process that would be worthwhile. As has been said ad infinitum already, if you just stay home there is nothing to differentiate you from people who are too lazy/stoned/apathetic to vote. The only people who are receiving your "message" is yourselves.

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 10:31 AM
"Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess." -- Ron Paul http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022773.html#more


The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)-- Ron Paul

Enough said.

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 10:34 AM
The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

It was killed because so many citizens sat on their asses, while others killed it.

Sitting on your ass now, is not going to do anything to get us out of this mess we are in.

tonesforjonesbones
10-29-2008, 10:35 AM
Here is my question. If Ron Paul strongly believes in the third party..why is he clinging to the Republican Party. Can anyone give me a clear answer on this? Tones

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:36 AM
That's a bit different than just sitting the election out.

If you voluntaryists all got together on election day and made a big deal about how you weren't going to participate in a corrupt process that would be worthwhile. As has been said ad infinitum already, if you just stay home there is nothing to differentiate you from people who are too lazy/stoned/apathetic to vote. The only people who are receiving your "message" is yourselves. And actually we're REALLY the ONLY ones that count, as far a we're concerned.<IMHO> ;)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:37 AM
Enough said. Good! :D

Original_Intent
10-29-2008, 10:38 AM
It was killed because so many citizens sat on their asses, while others killed it.

Sitting on your ass now, is not going to do anything to get us out of this mess we are in.

I am afraid I have to agree. thanks for all the effort to try and educate me, TW, but I guess I am just too stupid to have an epiphany :(.......;)......:p.....:D

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:41 AM
It was killed because so many citizens sat on their asses, while others killed it.

Sitting on your ass now, is not going to do anything to get us out of this mess we are in. YOUR government, YOUR mess. I didn't put you in it, YOU ( voters ) however, have dragged me into your cess pool.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:42 AM
I am afraid I have to agree. thanks for all the effort to try and educate me, TW, but I guess I am just too stupid to have an epiphany :(.......;)......:p.....:D


Confessions of a Former Voter (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hensley1.html)
Phil Hensley on his rehabilitation.

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 10:44 AM
Here is my question. If Ron Paul strongly believes in the third party..why is he clinging to the Republican Party. Can anyone give me a clear answer on this? Tones

He's not "clinging" to the Republican party; he recognizes the way things are right now. As he has said multiple times, the Republican party has lost it's way. It's been taken over by the big government statists. Since it is weak right now and it has a history of being for small government, he suggests we take it back.

That does not mean however that he advocates us voting for Republicans, just because they are Republicans. If the 3rd party candidate is better, well then, we should vote for them.

This is my understanding of what his stance is.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:46 AM
The Difference between Democrats and Republicans
http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/ (http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/)

An accurate, quick and easy read.<IMHO>

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 10:47 AM
YOUR government, YOUR mess. I didn't put you in it, YOU ( voters ) however, have dragged me into your cess pool.

Unfortunately, it is YOUR government too, TW, and if you want to change things, you might want to get involved. Otherwise, you are doing nothing but sitting on your couch "submitting", as per a previous remark of yours.

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 10:48 AM
The Difference between Democrats and Republicans
http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/ (http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/)

An accurate, quick and easy read.<IMHO>



That's what we are trying to change, TW. Want to help?

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 10:51 AM
Unfortunately, it is YOUR government too, TW, and if you want to change things, you might want to get involved. Otherwise, you are doing nothing but sitting on your couch "submitting", as per a previous remark of yours. Saying it doesn't make it so. I fired ALL of the weasly lying bastards that falsely claimed to represent me long, long ago. ;) No replacements have been hired since then.

As do you, as do you with NOTHING effective to show for it. :rolleyes: YOUR government continues to grow as we post.

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 11:03 AM
Saying it doesn't make it so.

No, but this does.


Originally Posted by Truth Warrior
I walk my talk and also submit to the annual extortion by the armed statist thugs, your agents.


I fired ALL of the weasly lying bastards that falsely claimed to represent me long, long ago. ;) No replacements have been hired since then.

Apparently, you didn't get rid of them. Because here you are, still "submitting".

I am curious how you think this behemoth calling government is going to be dismantled to at least a Constitutional level, by you sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing but trying to convince the people who want to reduce the size of the government, to not vote or try at all.

I guess it would make more sense to me if you spent your time trying to convince some of the people who are voting for big government, rather than those here.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 11:07 AM
That's what we are trying to change, TW. Want to help? I am.<IMHO> ;) You just don't seem to think so. :(

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 11:08 AM
I am.<IMHO> ;) You just don't seem to think so. :(

Nope. You seem to be trying to convince the very people who are attempting to dismantle big government, from even trying.

Matt Collins
10-29-2008, 11:16 AM
And then LIED that I hadn't answered your question.I asked what you suggest instead of voting, and all you did was post a link to LRC. That didn't answer the question.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 11:22 AM
No, but this does.





Apparently, you didn't get rid of them. Because here you are, still "submitting".

I don't submit to my employees, I fire them if they don't measure up. So, I guess the armed thugs and goons must be some of your's. Would you mind too much getting them off my back, out of my pocket and my life? Thanks! :)

I am curious how you think this behemoth calling government is going to be dismantled to at least a Constitutional level, by you sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing but trying to convince the people who want to reduce the size of the government, to not vote or try at all.

I think that this sums up several of my major views very well.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1790542&postcount=152 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1790542&postcount=152)

I guess it would make more sense to me if you spent your time trying to convince some of the people who are voting for big government, rather than those here.

Gee, now if I just only had ANY concern about what makes sense to you, we'd be all set, wouldn't we? :D

Voting is voting.<IMHO> It's ALL just big government growth hormone and fertilizer AKA BS.

:)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 11:42 AM
Nope. You seem to be trying to convince the very people who are attempting to dismantle big government, from even trying.
How long have voters been attempting to do that? And they have WHAT to show for their votes? Much bigger government. Maybe it WAAAAY past time to try something else, like perhaps REALITY. ;)

"Try not. Do or do not, there is no try." -- Yoda


"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 11:44 AM
I asked what you suggest instead of voting, and all you did was post a link to LRC. That didn't answer the question. Contextomy, yet once again? :p What part is it that you don't get? :rolleyes: Do you have a personal animosity against the "Quote" button?

Bern
10-29-2008, 12:26 PM
TW, your selective emphasis on Ron Paul's words show that you see what you want to see.

The media took notice of Ron Paul's primary campaign with the money bomb. In that case, dollars were votes and they spoke loudly. People (sheeople) will take notice when 3rd parties receive a significant percentage of the vote.

Not voting does not send a message. It only makes it easier for the machine to continue running you over.

You can blather on about how it's not your government... yadda yadda yadda... Unless you are going to withdraw from society and be the next Randy Weaver, it's a pretty vacuous argument.

Original_Intent
10-29-2008, 12:30 PM
How long have voters been attempting to do that? And they have WHAT to show for their votes? Much bigger government. Maybe it WAAAAY past time to try something else, like perhaps REALITY. ;)

"There is no try, there is only do or not do." -- Yoda

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

You have committed the most heinous of internet crimes, misquoting Yoda.

Matt Collins
10-29-2008, 12:32 PM
What part is it that you don't get? So what is your answer to the question?

Original_Intent
10-29-2008, 12:34 PM
You claim you fired them but you still pay them via taxes.

I wouldn't mind getting fired if you were my boss.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 12:36 PM
TW, your selective emphasis on Ron Paul's words show that you see what you want to see.

The media took notice of Ron Paul's primary campaign with the money bomb. In that case, dollars were votes and they spoke loudly. People (sheeople) will take notice when 3rd parties receive a significant percentage of the vote.

Not voting does not send a message. It only makes it easier for the machine to continue running you over.

You can blather on about how it's not your government... yadda yadda yadda... Unless you are going to withdraw from society and be the next Randy Weaver, it's a pretty vacuous argument. I fully support your right and choice of erroneous and silly thoughts, beliefs and opinions. :D

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 12:40 PM
You have committed the most heinous of internet crimes, misquoting Yoda. Quote correction please, if you would be so kind. ( Yeah, I'm really much more of an original Star Trek guy. ;) )

Live long and prosper!

Thanks! :)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 12:43 PM
So what is your answer to the question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context)

Find my answer post and "Quote" it!

nobody's_hero
10-29-2008, 12:45 PM
This thread got way too much attention. I regret ever contributing. :(

http://www.bittermancircle.com/my%20images/BeatDeadHorse.gif

Original_Intent
10-29-2008, 12:46 PM
Quote correction please, if you would be so kind. ( Yeah, I'm really much more of an original Star Trek guy. ;) )

Live long and prosper!

Thanks! :)

"Do or do not - there is no try." - Yoda ;)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 12:46 PM
You claim you fired them but you still pay them via taxes.

I wouldn't mind getting fired if you were my boss.

You tend to just skip and ignore a lot of intervening explanatory posts, dontcha? You tend to miss out on a lot that way.<IMHO> :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 12:48 PM
"Do or do not - thee is no try." - Yoda ;) " ... thee is no try." :p

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. -- Yoda
http://www.quotemountain.com/quotes/yoda_quotes/

josephadel_3
10-29-2008, 12:49 PM
It was killed because so many citizens sat on their asses, while others killed it.

Sitting on your ass now, is not going to do anything to get us out of this mess we are in.

Bullshit. By what measure could we have prevented the destruction of the Constitution, by voting? Hah. And voting will get us out of this mess? You seriously believe that? "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

Original_Intent
10-29-2008, 12:50 PM
" ... thee is no try." :p

HAHAHA I see your misquote and raise you a typo!

Original_Intent
10-29-2008, 12:53 PM
You tend to just skip and ignore a lot of intervening explanatory posts, dontcha? You tend to miss out on a lot that way.<IMHO> :rolleyes:

Yeah I read how you were submitting to the thugs that "we" voters keep sending to your door to collect...:rolleyes:

What color is the sky on the planet you live on, and can I move there?

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 12:53 PM
HAHAHA I see your misquote and raise you a typo!

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. -- Yoda
http://www.quotemountain.com/quotes/yoda_quotes/ (http://www.quotemountain.com/quotes/yoda_quotes/)

Thread post #191 corrected now.

Thanks! :)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 01:02 PM
Yeah I read how you were submitting to the thugs that "we" voters keep sending to your door to collect...:rolleyes:

What color is the sky on the planet you live on, and can I move there?

How do you handle armed robbery? Personally, I feel a deep sense of obligation to my brother and sister Americans to stay alive and out of prison. I wouldn't want to be an addition to their existing burdens. ;) ( Golden Rule! )

Blue and NO! :p

Original_Intent
10-29-2008, 02:14 PM
I don't want to brag, but a pity the fool that tries to mug either my wife or myself.

As far as it pertains to our current taxation system - I am still at the "soapbox" and "ballot box" phase of dealing with it. And yes I totally get that you think the ballot box is a wasted effort. But I sure as heck don't submit to their thuggery and hope that they go away.

If it ever comes time to go to the ammo box, I don't intend to be a burden on anyone. I hear the Chinese bill the family for the price of the bullet for an execution, hopefully we won't sink to that level of mean-spiritedness and can pass at least that cost on to our fellow taxpayer/slaves.

That's a morbid thought - let's do what we can to see it never gets to that stage, rather than thinking happy thoughts and hoping the Bad People will go away.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 02:26 PM
I don't want to brag, but a pity the fool that tries to mug either my wife or myself.

As far as it pertains to our current taxation system - I am still at the "soapbox" and "ballot box" phase of dealing with it. And yes I totally get that you think the ballot box is a wasted effort. But I sure as heck don't submit to their thuggery and hope that they go away.

If it ever comes time to go to the ammo box, I don't intend to be a burden on anyone. I hear the Chinese bill the family for the price of the bullet for an execution, hopefully we won't sink to that level of mean-spiritedness and can pass at least that cost on to our fellow taxpayer/slaves.

That's a morbid thought - let's do what we can to see it never gets to that stage, rather than thinking happy thoughts and hoping the Bad People will go away. Anytime that you are ready to outgrow your government programming, "brainwashing" and govenmentality, not to mention your hostage and slave status in the sociopathic cult, please feel free to go right ahead, my permission is not required. ;)

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 04:20 PM
Bullshit. By what measure could we have prevented the destruction of the Constitution, by voting? Hah. And voting will get us out of this mess? You seriously believe that? "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

Yes, voting. Also, getting involved in local, state and national politics --- run for office and win. Created informative, accurate and understood educational materials and used them to educate our neighbors and co-workers. For example, Americans did not understand why we should not be directly electing our Senators. If we would have been more proactive, we could have explained to them why this was bad. We fell down on this and many other things.

How many people here know the names of their state reps? How many know who their city commissioners are and have attended some of the meetings? How many people who have kids are involved in the PTA? How many parents have read the school books that their children have been assigned and raised hell if the information is inaccurate? The list goes on and on.

The neocons took over the Republican Party, because WE LET THEM. So, we can either decide to just throw in the towel, or we can fight the hell back. If you want to give up, why are you interested in Ron Paul or this movement? Just curious.

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 04:23 PM
Anytime that you are ready to outgrow your government programming, "brainwashing" and govenmentality, not to mention your hostage and slave status in the sociopathic cult, please feel free to go right ahead, my permission is not required. ;)

Slave status? YOU are the one who "submit", while not trying to do anything to dismantle the big government that you are "submitting" to. If anyone is a slave, it sounds like it is you.

Defeatism will get you no where.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 04:42 PM
Slave status? YOU are the one who "submit", while not trying to do anything to dismantle the big government that you are "submitting" to. If anyone is a slave, it sounds like it is you.

Defeatism will get you no where. Have you been recently elected to Chair the Department of Redundancy Department?

If you would care to go back and answer the question that I asked you several pages back :rolleyes:, you just might be able to get your phonograph needle unstuck. :p

Take a Midol!

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 04:47 PM
Have you been recently elected to Chair the Department of Redundancy Department?

If you would care to go back and answer the question that I asked you several pages back :rolleyes:, you just might be able to get your phonograph needle unstuck. :p

Take a Midol!

I don't care to look back through your defeatist mantra to find what you're talking about. If there is something that you believe I did not answer, do what you do best, TW.... cut-and-paste. :p

sailor
10-29-2008, 05:12 PM
I`m not into voting for politicians. I don`t belive a vote truly grants the would be leaders any sort of a mandate.

Now picking up a rifle (out of your own will) and following a leader into a battle gives him a mandate! Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn had a mandate. George Washington at Saratoga had a mandate.


I`d welcome plebiscites (not referendas) however and a chance to vote for legislation and other stuff directly.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 02:25 AM
I don't care to look back through your defeatist mantra to find what you're talking about. If there is something that you believe I did not answer, do what you do best, TW.... cut-and-paste. :p Yep, you NEVER do, typical habitual and predictable LE duck and dodge behavior. :(

In your particular case, I'd highly recommend that you try cut-and-paste, though there is that possible danger that you just might actually LEARN something in the process. :eek:

LibertyEagle
10-30-2008, 03:15 AM
Yep, you NEVER do, typical habitual and predictable LE duck and dodge behavior. :(

In your particular case, I'd highly recommend that you try cut-and-paste, though there is that possible danger that you just might actually LEARN something in the process. :eek:

I'm not dodging a thing, TW. Nice try. As I told you, if you believe I dodged something, cut-and-paste the question here. You certainly know how.... cutting-and-pasting is your forte. ;)

The ball is in your court. Put up or shut up.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 03:20 AM
I'm not dodging a thing, TW. Nice try. As I told you, if you believe I dodged something, cut-and-paste the question here. You certainly know how.... cutting-and-pasting is your forte. ;)

The ball is in your court. Put up or shut up. I've put up, you're just lazy.

LibertyEagle
10-30-2008, 03:27 AM
I've put up, you're just lazy.

:D

Just as I thought. All hat; no cattle. :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 03:36 AM
:D

Just as I thought. All hat; no cattle. :rolleyes: Just as I thought, ALL twit.

LibertyEagle
10-30-2008, 03:43 AM
If all else fails, just throw insults, eh TW?

If and when you want to show me the question that you say I didn't answer, I'd be happy to answer you. Otherwise, continue on with your insulting.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 03:45 AM
If all else fails, just throw insults, eh TW?

If and when you want to show me the question that you say I didn't answer, I'd be happy to answer you. Otherwise, continue on with your insulting. I learned that tactic from you. :p We've been on this path several times before, sadly. You lied then too.

josephadel_3
10-30-2008, 08:11 AM
Yes, voting. Also, getting involved in local, state and national politics --- run for office and win. Created informative, accurate and understood educational materials and used them to educate our neighbors and co-workers. For example, Americans did not understand why we should not be directly electing our Senators. If we would have been more proactive, we could have explained to them why this was bad. We fell down on this and many other things.

How many people here know the names of their state reps? How many know who their city commissioners are and have attended some of the meetings? How many people who have kids are involved in the PTA? How many parents have read the school books that their children have been assigned and raised hell if the information is inaccurate? The list goes on and on.

The neocons took over the Republican Party, because WE LET THEM. So, we can either decide to just throw in the towel, or we can fight the hell back. If you want to give up, why are you interested in Ron Paul or this movement? Just curious.

Voting accomplishes a waste of time and energy. The time we spend voting and setting up voting areas could much better be spent feeding the homeless or on a direct participation in charity. I've just made a decision not to vote. The Republican Party would have been "hijacked" no matter what we did. It's called banks, they run the country, regardless of how easy it is to despise Dick Cheney.

Original_Intent
10-30-2008, 08:24 AM
I have enjoyed this thread and learned a few things - I think the time has come to break out the wooden stakes, the anti-dead-horse beating devices, whatever, and give this thing an honorable burial.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 08:36 AM
I have enjoyed this thread and learned a few things - I think the time has come to break out the wooden stakes, the anti-dead-horse beating devices, whatever, and give this thing an honorable burial. Opinion noted. :rolleyes: