Natural Law trumps Constitutional Law

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Hi,

If I am not mistaken, Natural Law provided the basis for the Founding Documents. Constitutional Law, on the other hand, foists upon us the Supreme Court.

[Dr.3D]

Hi,

If I am not mistaken, Natural Law provided the basis for the Founding Documents. Constitutional Law, on the other hand, foists upon us the Supreme Court.

Good, now we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.... let's do something to make them work. No use in going back and starting all over again.

[heavenlyboy34]

Hi,

If I am not mistaken, Natural Law provided the basis for the Founding Documents. Constitutional Law, on the other hand, foists upon us the Supreme Court.

Correct. :cool: Now teach that to the others in a way they can understand, plz.

[jfriedman]

I agree, but is this is a snipe at the Moderators trying to focus the board on political activism and not political philosophy as espoused by the Anarchists/Voluntarists? (disclosure: I am a Voluntarist, but did not come here for philosophy).

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Hi,

No, this is not a snipe. I am not an anarchist; I just wanted to verify that Natural Rights have a place in our hallowed Constitutional Democratic-Republic.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

...and I am annoyed with the Supreme Court.

[torchbearer]

Hi,

No, this is not a snipe. I am not an anarchist; I just wanted to verify that Natural Rights have a place in our hallowed Constitutional Democratic-Republic.

and you are looking for this answer from random anonymous people on an internet forum?

[tremendoustie]

I agree, but is this is a snipe at the Moderators trying to focus the board on political activism and not political philosophy as espoused by the Anarchists/Voluntarists? (disclosure: I am a Voluntarist, but did not come here for philosophy).

It would make sense to have a separate forum specifically dedicated to activism, not political discussion, but you can't have a forum called "general politics", with the tagline, "Open to all political discussion.", and then ban those discussions you disagree with -- but allow plenty of others.

This is not about activism vs discussion, this is about mods going after only those political discussions which do not match their philosophical beliefs.

[LibertyEagle]

It would make sense to have a separate forum specifically dedicated to activism, not political discussion, but you can't have a forum called "general politics", with the tagline, "Open to all political discussion.", and then ban those discussions you disagree with -- but allow plenty of others.

This is not about activism vs discussion, this is about mods going after only those political discussions which do not match their philosophical beliefs.

Bullshit.

If you respect the forum mission statement and the forum guidelines, you will have no problems.

Stop trying to stir up shit. It's getting really old.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

and you are looking for this answer from random anonymous people on an internet forum?


Howdy,

I admit to having used random and anonymous sources for information, (such as Wikipedia), previously. I suppose it is not the best source, though I do not have any books on the Constitution and Natural Rights.

Have a great day.

Cheers,
Omphfullas Zamboni

[torchbearer]

Howdy,

I admit to having used random and anonymous sources for information, (such as Wikipedia), previously. I suppose it is not the best source, though I do not have any books on the Constitution and Natural Rights.

Have a great day.

Cheers,
Omphfullas Zamboni

are you interested in finding good sources of information?

[tremendoustie]

Bullshit.

If you respect the forum mission statement and the forum guidelines, you will have no problems.

Stop trying to stir up shit. It's getting really old.

I support political activism, I have said this repeatedly. Nowhere does it say that it will not be allowed to promote the idea of natural rights on this forum, or that we must all believe that the constitution is completely perfect in its current form.

Stirring up shit is not allowing people to have a friendly discussion, as was occuring in this thread, for example: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213902, because it is not a carbon copy of one's personal viewpoint.

[jfriedman]

Hi,

No, this is not a snipe. I am not an anarchist; I just wanted to verify that Natural Rights have a place in our hallowed Constitutional Democratic-Republic.

Hello Omphfullas Zamboni,

Oh okay, I was not sure. I find it interesting that you find our so-called by you Constituional Democratic-Republic, "hallowed".

Perhaps the Mises Community (http://mises.org/Community/forums/) could answer your query, as no doubt in the thread you participated in about Political Activism/Philosophy could lead one to consider Mises Forums a better place to gain your answer.

Sincerely,
Jake Friedman

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

are you interested in finding good sources of information?

Certainly.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution a relevant choice--do you know--or does it not at all address Natural Rights?

[torchbearer]

Certainly.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution a relevant choice--do you know--or does it not at all address Natural Rights?

I don't know.
I'd suggest you start with reading Madison's letters. His wife published them after he died. They do involve his thoughts on natural rights and the constitution.
I'd consider that first hand info.

[Truth-Bringer]

Hi,

If I am not mistaken, Natural Law provided the basis for the Founding Documents. Constitutional Law, on the other hand, foists upon us the Supreme Court.

Absolutely correct. When the Supreme Court was composed of honest, rational justices, they acknowledged this:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905)

[ClayTrainor]

"Our Rights are not given to us by government, we have been endowed with them since our creation by the very Laws of Nature, and as such they can not be repealed by any force on earth." -John Adams

[wizardwatson]

I see it like this.

"Natural Law" is the abstraction. The Constitution is the objective form of natural law, together with the structure for maintaining it.

The mission statement of the board recognizes the malleability of the Constitution and would like to 'restore' our Republic by getting our laws and Constitution more in accordance with Natural Law. Which in real terms, means getting away from how collectivist democracy has hijacked the Republic.

There is no reason to spread the idea of opposition between Natural Law and Consitutional Law. I think the latter follows from the former.

[ClayTrainor]

There is no reason to spread the idea of opposition between Natural Law and Consitutional Law. I think the latter follows from the former.

The bill of rights is consistent with Natural law, but the constitution is not. The Bill of Rights makes it's best attempt to defend natural rights from government, but the constitution grants the tiny amount of collective power that we now see has grown into the most dangerous collective force on this earth.

No piece of paper should grant any individuals or group of individuals the power to forcibly tax property. Perhaps we need leaders, and central organizers, i don't know but, they shouldn't' be enabled to use force on an individuals property, simply because they were able to win an American Idol style election.

The constitution is the right direction to go, obviously, but we must understand why it's flawed if we're interested in a real solution. Natural Law is where we should look if we want to truly understand and articulate our arguments to anyone besides American conservatives.

[LibertyEagle]

With all due respect Clay, you are getting the cart before the horse. Let's work to get the darn thing reinstated first. THEN, we can point out what needs to be changed.

[angelatc]

"Our Rights are not given to us by government, we have been endowed with them since our creation by the very Laws of Nature, and as such they can not be repealed by any force on earth." -John Adams

False. They're repealed every day in other countries all over the world, including this one.

[ClayTrainor]

With all due respect Clay, you are getting the cart before the horse. Let's work to get the darn thing reinstated first. THEN, we can point out what needs to be changed.

but the constitution is not consistent with natural law, that's all i'm saying. The power to forcibly tax property of individuals, is the problem and the constitution is the seed of that power. If we get it re-instated, do you agree it needs to be eliminated, afterwords?

I agree with everything you said, except for "getting in the car before the horse". I don't think constitutional argumetns work very well, especially when discussing issues with "the left", or non-conservatives. My knowledge used to stem from what i had learned about Ron Paul and the constitution, and i was getting owned in family and friend debates, on a regular basis.

Then i started studying natural law a bit, and the arguments for the original intent of the constitution became so freaking clear. Politics and history are far more complicated to learn, understand and be consistent with than arguments stemming from Nature. I will always emphasize the importance of Natural Law over the constitution, but i'm not opposed to working towards the constitution, which is why i'm here. My real goals involve humanity and natural rights though, not a political structure.

I personally think politicians need to become a thing of the past. I hope our candidates will show how much the others have screwed up, if they make it to office.

:)

[LibertyEagle]

Color me frustrated, Clay.

I thought we went through all this yesterday.

Please stop it.

[ClayTrainor]

False. They're repealed every day in other countries all over the world, including this one.

no, they are not respected in many other countries, but they obviously exist.

Rights are inherent in your nature. You disagree with the founders?

[ClayTrainor]

Color me frustrated, Clay.

I thought we went through all this yesterday.

Please stop it.

Stop what? Responding honestly to threads, and supporting the constitutional activists as a means to eventually restore natural law?

[torchbearer]

no, they are not respected in other countries.

Rights are inherent in your nature. You disagree with the founders?

not all founders believed in natural rights.
some, like hamilton, believed that you derived your rights from government.

how much early american history have you read?

[ClayTrainor]

not all founders believed in natural rights.
some, like hamilton, believed that you derived your rights from government.


Fair enough, when i referred to founders here, i'm essentially referring to those who wrote the declaration. I do not regard the constitution as the foundation of america, the declaration is.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


how much early american history have you read?

Not enough, it's not taught in school out here.

I'm aware of the Federalist papers though, and the debate that raged.

[wizardwatson]

The bill of rights is consistent with Natural law, but the constitution is not. The Bill of Rights makes it's best attempt to defend natural rights from government, but the constitution grants the tiny amount of collective power that we now see has grown into the most dangerous collective force on this earth.

The 'Bill of Rights' are part of the Constitution, are you talking about the Declaration of Independence?


No piece of paper should grant any individuals or group of individuals the power to forcibly tax property. Perhaps we need leaders, and central organizers, i don't know but, they shouldn't' be enabled to use force on an individuals property, simply because they were able to win an American Idol style election.

You have to remember historically, the common law system, was the "natural" law of the land. The Constitution was to be an arrangement among the various colonies/States, not an entire restructuring of the system of law itself.


The constitution is the right direction to go, obviously, but we must understand why it's flawed if we're interested in a real solution. Natural Law is where we should look if we want to truly understand and articulate our arguments to anyone besides American conservatives.

I agree, we have a hurdle to overcome with neo-liberals and young people when it comes to explaining why the Constitutional direction is preferable. The neo-liberal movement I think is collectivist by design and plays on people's compassion. I think that's partly where we are lacking. This libertarian/anarcho-cap/constitutionalist/individualist, doesn't scream compassion. But compassion and justice are closely related ( you only recognize injustice because of your compassion ) and we need to think of ways to communicate to them along these lines.

I disagree with the idea that we need to appeal to them intellectually through understanding of natural law. Partly for reasons above, partly because I haven't seen anyone do it well, and partly because I think it goes beyond what is necessary.

[LibertyEagle]

Clay, yes, our rights are owned by us. We should never agree to hand them over to government. EVER.

That said, we are so freaking far from getting our representatives corralled under the Constitution, that it is far too early to be talking about what we need to do after we get that done. That's what I meant by getting the cart before the horse, Clay. Most people out there have the attention span of a postage stamp. Getting them to see why most of our existing problems would go away, IF we would hold our reps accountable for their oaths of office, is already a monumental task. But, we are gaining on it. Why on earth would you want to send them to the ozone layer by confounding them with discussions about abolishing the Constitution, out of the other side of your mouth? All we will end up doing is confusing the hell out of them and scaring them away from our message.

C'mon man.

[LibertyEagle]

Stop what? Responding honestly to threads, and supporting the constitutional activists as a means to eventually restore natural law?

No, Clay. It's things like this.


but the constitution is not consistent with natural law, that's all i'm saying. The power to forcibly tax property of individuals, is the problem and the constitution is the seed of that power. If we get it re-instated, do you agree it needs to be eliminated, afterwords?

[ClayTrainor]

The 'Bill of Rights' are part of the Constitution, are you talking about the Declaration of Independence?


i understand it's part of the constitution, but I think the rights are the only important part of the constitution, not the powers that it grants. :)



You have to remember historically, the common law system, was the "natural" law of the land. The Constitution was to be an arrangement among the various colonies/States, not an entire restructuring of the system of law itself.


Yea, i know, but I just think the tiny dose of granted powers is the seed that grew.



I agree, we have a hurdle to overcome with neo-liberals and young people when it comes to explaining why the Constitutional direction is preferable.
It's not such a hurdle when you have a firm understanding of natural law, to back up your knowledge of the constitution.



The neo-liberal movement I think is collectivist by design and plays on people's compassion. I think that's partly where we are lacking. This libertarian/anarcho-cap/constitutionalist/individualist, doesn't scream compassion. But compassion and justice are closely related ( you only recognize injustice because of your compassion ) and we need to think of ways to communicate to them along these lines.

I think every individual has individual desires, and in depth discussions on natural law and natural rights can really bring them around.



I disagree with the idea that we need to appeal to them intellectually through understanding of natural law. Partly for reasons above, partly because I haven't seen anyone do it well, and partly because I think it goes beyond what is necessary.

Well, i just don't think constitution arguments will ever work with the progressives or "left". They understand many aspects of natural law, but they get confused when it comes to the morality of the tax system.

the best way to debunk enforced taxation is Natural Law. The constitution is more of a "limited tax" argument, which is fine, but i cant' stand on principle when talking to the libs.

Cheers :)

[ClayTrainor]

No, Clay. It's things like this.

Honest and highly relevant question (see thread title) , in hot topics....

I'm just discussing it on an honest level. I'm not badmouthing the constitution or the activism surrounding it. I support it, it's just not my reason for being a liberty activist.

You don't have to answer it, but my question was not meant to offend or incite your emotions. I wasn't asking you to reject the constitution, i'm basically asking if it's important because of natural law, or not?

I promise i wont talk about how frustrated i am with your responses :)

[ClayTrainor]

Clay, yes, our rights are owned by us. We should never agree to hand them over to government. EVER.



The answer i was hoping for :)



That said, we are so freaking far from getting our representatives corralled under the Constitution, that it is far too early to be talking about what we need to do after we get that done.
I think understanding our path to liberty is important, and i don't agree the constitution is the end all be all.

It's an important tool yes, but there's more to activism and how to accomplish liberty than just supporting the constitution, that's all im saying.

I fully support getting our candidates elected!



That's what I meant by getting the cart before the horse, Clay. Most people out there have the attention span of a postage stamp. Getting them to see why most of our existing problems would go away, IF we would hold our reps accountable for their oaths of office, is already a monumental task.

I agree to an extent, but i don't think reps will constantly be held accountable when granted these powers, especially as generations pass.

If we do restore the republic, what's to stop it from growing again? This question illustrates the importance of the constitutions foundation! I believe the declaration is the foundation of America, Natural rights are the foundation of the declaration.


But, we are gaining on it. Why on earth would you want to send them to the ozone layer by confounding them with discussions about abolishing the Constitution, out of the other side of your mouth? All we will end up doing is confusing the hell out of them and scaring them away from our message.


It's not about abolishing the constitution, it's about admitting that the constitution is important because of the respect it had for something. :)

I'm not arguing against the constitution, as much as i am FOR natural rights. I just think foundations are essential to knowledge and productive activism.

Nasa won't be landing anything on mars if they don't understand 2+2=4 first.

[ronpaulhawaii]

The 'Bill of Rights' are part of the Constitution, are you talking about the Declaration of Independence?



You have to remember historically, the common law system, was the "natural" law of the land. The Constitution was to be an arrangement among the various colonies/States, not an entire restructuring of the system of law itself.



I agree, we have a hurdle to overcome with neo-liberals and young people when it comes to explaining why the Constitutional direction is preferable. The neo-liberal movement I think is collectivist by design and plays on people's compassion. I think that's partly where we are lacking. This libertarian/anarcho-cap/constitutionalist/individualist, doesn't scream compassion. But compassion and justice are closely related ( you only recognize injustice because of your compassion ) and we need to think of ways to communicate to them along these lines.

I disagree with the idea that we need to appeal to them intellectually through understanding of natural law. Partly for reasons above, partly because I haven't seen anyone do it well, and partly because I think it goes beyond what is necessary.

THIS^^^

Intellectualism turns the vast majority people off. It is perceived as arrogance by the sleeping giant. As opposed to most of the theorists here, I know this from vast experience. The fact is that I have never read Rothbard, or any other books that many rely so heavily on. I don't have the time for intellectualism, I want to be EFFECTIVE and win this damn thing. Does anyone think I am not effective by using empathy and my passion for integrity?

WAKE UP!!!

[angelatc]

THIS^^^

Intellectualism turns the vast majority people off. It is perceived as arrogance by the sleeping giant. As opposed to most of the theorists here, I know this from vast experience. The fact is that I have never read Rothbard, or any other books that many rely so heavily on. I don't have the time for intellectualism, I want to be EFFECTIVE and win this damn thing. Does anyone think I am not effective by using empathy and my passion for integrity?

WAKE UP!!!

I agree. I think it's important for a leader to surround himself with some quiet intellectuals, but bu and large populists win elections.

We'd be better off if we all read "How To Won Friends And Influence People" and books about how to organize and win political campaigns than just about anything else on our list.

[ClayTrainor]

THIS^^^

Intellectualism turns the vast majority people off. It is perceived as arrogance by the sleeping giant. As opposed to most of the theorists here, I know this from vast experience. The fact is that I have never read Rothbard, or any other books that many rely so heavily on. I don't have the time for intellectualism, I want to be EFFECTIVE and win this damn thing. Does anyone think I am not effective by using empathy and my passion for integrity?

WAKE UP!!!

I get what you're saying, and agree with it.

All i'm saying is i've actually managed to convert both left and right equally since i came to a better understanding of natural law. When i was just trying to understand the constitutional arguments, i was only having success in terms of economic liberty, with conservatives and "the right". When it came to constitutional arguments against the war, i was able to get the left to agree with me, and not the right.

Natural Law arguments are how we unite the divide. I really think it's a powerful argument, and we don't do ourselves justice by ignoring it as the true foundation of liberty, which every individual desires if you explain it properly :)

[angelatc]

Nasa won't be landing anything on mars if they don't understand 2+2=4 first.

It's the metric system that trips them up.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/orbiter_errorupd_093099.htm

[LibertyEagle]

Nasa won't be landing anything on mars if they don't understand 2+2=4 first.

Nor, will they get there if they don't build the spaceship first.

[angelatc]

I get what you're saying, and agree with it.

All i'm saying is i've actually managed to convert both left and right equally since i came to a better understanding of natural law. When i was just trying to understand the constitutional arguments, i was only having success in terms of economic liberty, with conservatives and "the right". When it came to constitutional arguments against the war, i was able to get the left to agree with me, and not the right.

Natural Law arguments are how we unite the divide. I really think it's a powerful argument, and we don't do ourselves justice by ignoring it as the true foundation of liberty, which every individual desires if you explain it properly :)

Winning people one at a time is pretty much a wasted effort.

[ClayTrainor]

Winning people one at a time is pretty much a wasted effort.

I disagree. I think that's how this fight will be won, if we are to win. Individuals are the ones who vote for your leaders ;)

I like to convince them of their independence and how they don't need to be led.

[ronpaulhawaii]

I get what you're saying, and agree with it.

All i'm saying is i've actually managed to convert both left and right equally since i came to a better understanding of natural law. When i was just trying to understand the constitutional arguments, i was only having success in terms of economic liberty, with conservatives and "the right". When it came to constitutional arguments against the war, i was able to get the left to agree with me, and not the right.

Natural Law arguments are how we unite the divide. I really think it's a powerful argument, and we don't do ourselves justice by ignoring it as the true foundation of liberty, which every individual desires if you explain it properly :)

Of course inalienable rights trump all things written by man. That goes without saying. Do you think we are all idiots? Why even ask the god damn question It is waste of fucking time and REALLY starting to piss me off.

DO YOU THINK I AM STUPID?

[angelatc]

I disagree. I think that's how this fight will be won, if we are to win. Those who think they can do it in 1 fell swoop will be horribly disappointed, imo.

History proves otherwise.

[LibertyEagle]

I get what you're saying, and agree with it.

All i'm saying is i've actually managed to convert both left and right equally since i came to a better understanding of natural law. When i was just trying to understand the constitutional arguments, i was only having success in terms of economic liberty, with conservatives and "the right". When it came to constitutional arguments against the war, i was able to get the left to agree with me, and not the right.

Natural Law arguments are how we unite the divide. I really think it's a powerful argument, and we don't do ourselves justice by ignoring it as the true foundation of liberty, which every individual desires if you explain it properly :)

Who are you talking to, Clay? Americans or Canadians? Because I can understand if you're having a hard time pitching getting U.S. reps back under Constitutional restraints, to Canadians.

[ClayTrainor]

Nor, will they get there if they don't build the spaceship first.

exactly :)

Foundations of knowledge, are key to understanding how to get there. Natural law is 2+2=4, and the constitution is an old spaceship. :)

[ClayTrainor]

Who are you talking to, Clay? Americans or Canadians? Because I can understand if you're having a hard time pitching getting U.S. reps back under Constitutional restraints, to Canadians.

I'm basically saying that constitutional arguments only work on those who have some belief in the document, already. Most foreigners don't know much about it at all, therefore the arguments don't make much sense to them. Perhaps because i don't understand political systems, and the history that well. There's a lot to take in and learn, there are Hundreds of years of controversial history, since the constitutions creation.

I have a far easier time explaining my positions from Natural Law, unless i'm talking to an american conservative, in which case i will sometimes use the constitutional arguments first, and then bring in natural law after.

I just think natural law effective in all spectrums. It is our foundation. It is 2+2=4 :)

[angelatc]

exactly :)

Foundations of knowledge, are key to understanding how to get there. Natural law is 2+2=4, and the constitution is an old spaceship. :)

That's worked so well in the past. You're pretending that people aren't apathetic. You can't build an effective foundation 1 brick at a time when the other team is pouring concrete by the yard.

People don't care about natural rights. They're perfectly happy to give them up in the name of safety and security or prosperity or....

You're never ever ever going to see candidates speaking to the intellectual crowd, because there's never going to be an intellectual crowd.

[Dr.3D]

exactly :)

Foundations of knowledge, are key to understanding how to get there. Natural law is 2+2=4, and the constitution is an old spaceship. :)

But the constitution got us there the first time and it can do it again. No use in reinventing the space ship. We already have one that works. Just because someone opened the door of the spaceship mid flight is no reason to condemn the entire project of using the spaceship again.

Those who wish to redesign the spaceship and don't even have plans for a new one are just wasting the time of those who are preparing the old but sufficient spaceship. Perhaps this time, we can keep some idiot from opening the door mid flight.

[ClayTrainor]

Of course inalienable rights trump all things written by man. That goes without saying. Do you think we are all idiots? Why even ask the god damn question It is waste of fucking time and REALLY starting to piss me off.

DO YOU THINK I AM STUPID?

Absolutely not, but these basic points have been challenged in this thread, so i respond. I'll try to limit my honesty for you in the future, i guess :(

[LibertyEagle]

exactly :)

Foundations of knowledge, are key to understanding how to get there. Natural law is 2+2=4, and the constitution is an old spaceship. :)

Clay, stop it. Seriously.

A whole lot of us here have read a lot of books. We can go around and act like we're intellectually superior to everyone else, but what will it get us? NOTHING. Not one damn positive thing. But, it will piss off a whole lot of people and drive them from our message.

Is our goal to reach people and get them to vote for our candidates, or is it to be a small little self-righteous clique?

First and foremost, this is an activist forum and I think the mission statement is pretty clear about what our stance is.

Please help us.

[angelatc]

I'm basically saying that constitutional arguments only work on those who have some belief in the document, already.

Like 99% of Americans?

[ClayTrainor]

But the constitution got us there the first time and it can do it again. No use in reinventing the space ship. We already have one that works. Just because someone opened the door of the spaceship mid flight is no reason to condemn the entire project of using the spaceship again.

Apollo 11 got us to the moon first, why don't we use it again? :)

Look i agree, the constitution is a good goal to shoot for. We really aren't disagreeing here.



Those who wish to redesign the spaceship and don't even have plans for a new one are just wasting the time of those who are preparing the old but sufficient spaceship.

You make a good point. I think this space ship crashed and burned though. Maybe there's enough parts left to rebuild?

I'm not arguing against that, i'm just arguing for the foundation of it:)


Perhaps this time, we can keep some idiot from opening the door mid flight.

i lol'd, haha.

[ClayTrainor]

Like 99% of Americans?

They sure don't vote like it. Unless of course it can be interpreted in many different ways ;)

[LibertyEagle]

They sure don't vote like it. Unless of course it can be interpreted in many different ways ;)

Since you like to read, Clay, go read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and then you will better understand the principles upon which the Constitution was founded.

[angelatc]

They sure don't vote like it. Unless of course it can be interpreted in many different ways ;)

As an American I can assure you that Americans do indeed hold a belief in the Constitution. They deviate on the interpretations, but it is a document that most people in this country would die to physically protect.

Which means we don't need your natural law talks after all.

[ronpaulhawaii]

...

I just think natural law effective in all spectrums :)

Then find a way to promote without denigrating others efforts.

Now let me tell you why I am so pissed right now. Yesterday, your antics distracted me from doing my job, I was out seeding the district and that is very hard to do while being asked to do something about people on this board who seem to have little understanding of things like empathy and what actually works with the vast majority of people. Further, in you case in particular we have had to deal with drama threads such as "Optatron Banned?" "How do I contact Conza?" "Ron Paul and Stefan Molyneux" etc...

So while you are trying to convince me I am doing it wrong, you are further distracting me from DOING IT!

W.T.F.!!!

[ClayTrainor]

Clay, stop it. Seriously.

A whole lot of us here have read a lot of books. We can go around and act like we're intellectually superior to everyone else, but what will it get us? NOTHING. Not one damn positive thing. But, it will piss off a whole lot of people and drive them from our message.

I'm not acting intellectually superior, i'm just being honest.



Is our goal to reach people and get them to vote for our candidates, or is it to be a small little self-righteous clique?

The former, and i never said anything to the contrary.

Natural law can be used to encourage our candidates, you know. :)

The only thing i'm trying to do, is get more people reading into natural law. I think our movement will be stronger and more active, if so. I am not voicing dissent against constitutional activism, nto even remotely.

I understand that you are far more knowledgeable than me on American history, as are most people here. I'm not trying to be superior.



First and foremost, this is an activist forum and I think the mission statement is pretty clear about what our stance is.

I think it's a source of a lot of the controversy here, but we dont' need to get into it again :o

It's a GREAT mission statement, and i support it, although i don't think it takes in the full spectrum of where the value of our activism comes into play :)


Please help us.

I intended to, even if i left this forum. I'm here for liberty and the constitution is the right direction, but not the foundation. :)

Sorry if i'm frustrating you. I just strongly believe in foundations, including with my personal life and my business ventures.

[Joe3113]

Since you like to read, Clay, go read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and then you will better understand the principles upon which the Constitution was founded.

Did you support the federalists or the anti-federalists?

[Dr.3D]

Apollo 11 got us to the moon first, why don't we use it again? :)

Actually, the plans for Apollo 11 are still around and it would be quicker to build another one like it than to build something completely different. Even if there are plans to build something completely different, the new plans would have much of what was included in the old plan.



Look i agree, the constitution is a good goal to shoot for. We really aren't disagreeing here.

Well, let's use the old plans again, they worked the first time and lasted nearly 200 years.



You make a good point. I think this space ship crashed and burned though. Maybe there's enough parts left to rebuild?

It didn't crash and burn. It completed the mission repeatedly. It was not perfect but it did work and it lasted a long time. We just need to have someone watching the door to make sure it doesn't get opened again mid flight.



I'm not arguing against that, i'm just arguing for the foundation of it:)


i lol'd, haha.

The foundation was sound... it worked and our country prospered. It wasn't till those who decided to sabotage the project opened the door that it failed.
The door didn't get opened till what, perhaps our 100th mission? It worked very well till someone opened the darned door and allowed the atmosphere to get out.

[LibertyEagle]

Clay, must of us here all understand the foundational principles.

You are beating a dead horse, here.

If you can do something to help us achieve our mission, it would be greatly appreciated. But, these constant digs at our Constitution are not helping. Seriously. All it is doing is distracting us.

We're going to lose it all, unless we get busy.

[ClayTrainor]

Then find a way to promote without denigrating others efforts.

And i'm not... I'm just illustrating the foundation as i see it, and it's pissing people off for some reason.



Now let me tell you why I am so pissed right now. Yesterday, your antics distracted me from doing my job, I was out seeding the district and that is very hard to do while being asked to do something about people on this board who seem to have little understanding of things like empathy and what actually works with the vast majority of people.

Well, I'm in marketing for a living, and do quite well at it. I like to think my marketing abilities and insights have been of some value here. I believe i know how people think and why they respond certain ways, to a large degree. I study it for a living.



Further, in you case in particular we have had to deal with drama threads such as "Optatron Banned?" "How do I contact Conza?" "Ron Paul and Stefan Molyneux" etc...

1. the Ron Paul and stefan thread, was just a request to see if this forum would be interested in seeing an interview. I accepted the forums response as a solid "no", and it was not controversial. It's not worse than requesting a Fox news appearance or something.

2. Conza was one of my favorite members here, and i'm sorry for that. I like to think someone would create a thread for me if i was banned.

3. Yea, i'm a checks and balances kinda guy. I agree with 99% of the mod decisions, sorry for my concern for fellow members.

Apologies for those, you definitely have a point here. I'll try to stop questioning mod decisions.



So while you are trying to convince me I am doing it wrong, you are further distracting me from DOING IT!

W.T.F.!!!

What?!?! i'm not trying to convince you you're doing anything wrong man. Wtf, indeed?

You're like my favorite activist, more people need to be like you.

[LibertyEagle]

Did you support the federalists or the anti-federalists?

I favor the anti-federalists, personally. I would imagine most people here do.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

[ClayTrainor]

Clay, must of us here all understand the foundational principles.

You are beating a dead horse, here.

Fair enough.


If you can do something to help us achieve our mission, it would be greatly appreciated. But, these constant digs at our Constitution are not helping. Seriously. All it is doing is distracting us.


I'm not trying to dig at the constitution, i'm trying to be realistic about it. I constantly tell you how much i support it, and for what reason.

I just think our activism would improve with as much respect for the foundation as the tool.



We're going to lose it all, unless we get busy.

I hear ya, and i'm with ya.

[ClayTrainor]

Don't forget people, i'm the guy who made the constitution revolution video :)

YouTube - Constitution Revolution 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt-jcS3ItRY)

I'm with you, trust me. I'm just a fan of foundations, and think they're at least as important as the tool derived from it. :)

[pacelli]

I disagree. I think that's how this fight will be won, if we are to win. Individuals are the ones who vote for your leaders ;)

I like to convince them of their independence and how they don't need to be led.

Your position in the discussion is so simplistic that you are starting to contradict yourself.

You're saying that you want to convince individuals that they don't need to be led.

You're also saying that winning means convincing individuals to vote for leaders.

If someone doesn't need to be led, then they don't need a leader.

Therefore, according to your logic, individuals don't need to vote. It seems like you are trying to 'win' by convincing people not to vote.

If that is your ultimate goal, that's your choice. But please don't stand in the way of people that still hold true to the voting paradigm.

[Joe3113]

I favor the anti-federalists, personally. I would imagine most people here do.

Do you know anything about their movement? The fierce opposition to the Constitution? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism#History)

And from observing a lot of confrontations between you and Conza previously, I'm just going to leave it there. You can have the last word. I don't want to end up banned too. Enjoy.

[ClayTrainor]

Your position in the discussion is so simplistic that you are starting to contradict yourself.

If you think that's a contradiction, you didn't read it properly, or maybe i didn't write it clear enough. :o

She's saying convincing individuals doesn't matter, and i'm saying how is that possible when individuals vote for the leaders?



You're saying that you want to convince individuals that they don't need to be led.

You're also saying that winning means convincing individuals to vote for leaders.


Not what i meant, but i could see how it was interpreted that way. I should've been clearer.

[ClayTrainor]

Therefore, according to your logic, individuals don't need to vote. It seems like you are trying to 'win' by convincing people not to vote.


Convincing them they don't need to be led. You can still vote for the people who don't want to lead you. Adam Kokesh, Ron Paul, etc.

"I don't want to run your life" - Ron Paul



If that is your ultimate goal, that's your choice. But please don't stand in the way of people that still hold true to the voting paradigm.

I never have and never will. I'm just illustrating our foundations, and people get frustrated when i dont regard the constitution as it.

The constitution is the product of the foundation of liberty, not the source. I support the constitution as a means to true liberty, always have. I just favor natural law arguments over constitutional ones, as i find them more convincing, easier for individuals to understand and consistent. Perhaps it's just a flaw in me. Please forgive me for my flaws, if so :)

[Anti Federalist]

Humbug on this whole thread.

The New World Order is laughing at all of us, sitting around arguing how many angels can dance on the head of pin, while they erect the control grid around us.

I'm doing my part, as best I can, so is Mike and so is Clay.

Keep on doing what you do best and worry less about what the other guy's doing.

Fer Chrissakes, knock it off.

[ronpaulhawaii]

OK, I have officially snapped. I cannot believe after the shitstorm yesterday people who claim to support our mission statement are still beating the dead horse. I am going to try to calm down and apologize for snapping


And i'm not... I'm just illustrating the foundation as i see it, and it's pissing people off for some reason.

"For some reason..." do you think that that is our fault? Or maybe it is the way you are framing it. In my life I take responsibilty for my successes and failures in getting my point across.


Well, I'm in marketing for a living, and do quite well at it. I like to think my marketing abilities and insights have been of some value here. I believe i know how people think and why they respond certain ways, to a large degree. I study it for a living.


But if it is obviously pissing people off, what makes you think it is effective?


1. the Ron Paul and stefan thread, was just a request to see if this forum would be interested in seeing an interview. Would you be opposed to that?

I think intellectual philosophizing is pretty a waste of time for all but academic purposes. Stefan is a controversial character and anarchy scares the hell out of the sleeping giant.


2. Conza was one of my favorite members here, and i'm sorry for that. I like to think someone would create a thread for me if i was banned.

So are you saying that your own ego is more important that winning the battle we are in? If I was like that I certainly would not have been able to honestly apologize yesterday. My own ego would have gotten in the way...


3. Yea, i'm a checks and balances kinda guy. I agree with 99% of the mod decisions, sorry for my concern for fellow members.

Apologies for those, you definitely have a point here.

What, i'm not trying to convince you you're doing anything wrong man. Wtf, indeed?

You're like my favorite activist, more people need to be like you.

You might not see that you are trying to tell me I'm doing something wrong, but that is what I see. That is what I mean by empathy. Not trying to convince me I am wrong for feeling this way, but finding a way to get your points across that doesn't make me feel that way

[LibertyEagle]

Do you know anything about their movement? The fierce opposition to the Constitution? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism#History)
Yes, Curlz. I first read the Anti-Federalist papers when I was about 10 years old. Have you read them?


And from observing a lot of confrontations between you and Conza previously, I'm just going to leave it there. You can have the last word. I don't want to end up banned too. Enjoy.
Yes, I realize that a whole lot of this is because some are still having temper tantrums over Conza being banned. Whether you want to admit it or not, he earned it, in spades. We gave him more chances than anyone in the history of RonPaulForums.

You say you agree with Conza on a lot of issues. Have you ever asked yourself why, as opposed to Conza, you have gotten hardly any reprimands from Mods or Admins? Maybe it is because you behaved much differently. Conza's complete and utter disrespect of our forum guidelines is what got him banned.

[MRoCkEd]

I'm doing my part, as best I can, so is Mike and so is Clay.

Keep on doing what you do best and worry less about what the other guy's doing.

Fer Chrissakes, knock it off.
qft

knock it off

[angelatc]

If you think that's a contradiction, you didn't read it properly.

She's saying convincing individuals doesn't matter, and i'm saying how is that possible when individuals vote for the leaders.




Let me be perfectly clear about what she meant. She meant that converting people one at a time is an absolute waste of time. That's why elections are won on television and not at town halls.

She also means that when she stands on the corner at the Farmer's Market on Saturday and Sunday, people gravitate en masse toward the Constitution. If there is a 1% minority out there that would also come if natural law material were included, it wouldn't be worth including it to win over that 1%, and it's certainly not worth winning them over one at a time.

She knows that 99% of them could give a rat's ass about natural law, and that 100% are more interested in what we can do now than listening to somebody drone on and on about something they have no interest in.

She also knows that you said
Originally Posted by ClayTrainor
I'm basically saying that constitutional arguments only work on those who have some belief in the document, already. to which I insinuated clearly means we obviously don't need to discuss natural law any farther because 99% of Americans believe in the Constitution and Constitutional arguments.

Here - go read this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871318784/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1902301579&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0TVT56F5P9N4P6R0J085

[angelatc]

Humbug on this whole thread.

The New World Order is laughing at all of us, sitting around arguing how many angels can dance on the head of pin, while they erect the control grid around us.

I'm doing my part, as best I can, so is Mike and so is Clay.

Keep on doing what you do best and worry less about what the other guy's doing.

Fer Chrissakes, knock it off.

You know what? When the efforts of others aren't something I have any interest in, like the blimp, I ignore them. But when I see efforts that I perceive as counter-productive to what I'm trying to do, I'm not standing down.

That control grid is the concrete I mentioned in the above post.

[ClayTrainor]

OK, I have officially snapped. I cannot believe after the shitstorm yesterday people who claim to support our mission statement are still beating the dead horse. I am going to try to calm down and apologize for snapping

First, i'm sorry if you see it that way. I really dont' see this as a dead horse, but understand you do.



"For some reason..." do you think that that is our fault? Or maybe it is the way you are framing it. In my life I take responsibilty for my successes and failures in getting my point across.


I think we're all at fault to certain extents for all this controversy. I don't think you guys should be nearly as pissed off at what i'm saying. I'm constantly trying to word it in the most polite, and logical way possible.

I'm not trying to inflate my ego, sorry if it appears that i am.



But if it is obviously pissing people off, what makes you think it is effective?


I just know i've personally been far more effective in my conversations converting non-activists into activists, by using arguments that stem from natural law, not the constitution.

I'm really just passing on advice i've learned, on how to better support the liberty activism and the path the constitution leads us in. It's obviously being accepted and rejected by many :o



I think intellectual philosophizing is pretty a waste of time for all but academic purposes. Stefan is a controversial character and anarchy scares the hell out of the sleeping giant.

There are practical implications to philosophical arguments, imo. Our activism is directed by our philosophy.

I agree you can beat a dead horse with this stuff though, i just don't agree that Natural Law is a dead horse. If it is, please give it CPR :o



So are you saying that your own ego is more important that winning the battle we are in? If I was like that I certainly would not have been able to honestly apologize yesterday. My own ego would have gotten in the way...

Absolutely not. This has nothing to do with ego, nor am i trying to act like i have superior knowledge. I'm sorry if i'm coming across like that.

I do not feel superior to you, in any way Michael. I'm a lesser man, i happily admit.




You might not see that you are trying to tell me I'm doing something wrong, but that is what I see. That is what I mean by empathy. Not trying to convince me I am wrong for feeling this way, but finding a way to get your points across that doesn't make me feel that way

I hear you and your point is taken, but to be honest, i'm not frustrated by you and i have no idea why you're frustrated by my words in this thread.

I'm just being honest about how i see it, and why i support the constitution, as a viable strategy to achieve our ultimate principles. I just think Natural Law is a better argument, but i'm not saying i don't support constitutional activism.

Much respect

[ClayTrainor]

Humbug on this whole thread.

The New World Order is laughing at all of us, sitting around arguing how many angels can dance on the head of pin, while they erect the control grid around us.

I'm doing my part, as best I can, so is Mike and so is Clay.

Keep on doing what you do best and worry less about what the other guy's doing.

Fer Chrissakes, knock it off.

100% agree. Am i coming across as a bit too aggressive here in this thread,anti-fed, honestly?

Am i ego-tripping a bit? Please be honest, i trust your views :)

[ronpaulhawaii]

I hear you and your point is taken, but to be honest, i'm not frustrated by you and i have no idea why you're frustrated by my words in this thread.

I'm just being honest about how i see it, and why i support the constitution, as a viable strategy to achieve our ultimate principles. I just think Natural Law is a better argument, but i'm not saying i don't support constitutional activism.

Much respect

I am frustrated by the sum total of the "constitution is a flawed document" debate. We all know that nothing created by man is perfect. You seem to think we don't know that and it is your job to explain that to us. Comments like (paraphrased) "I think all politicians should be extinct" "The spaceship crashed and burned" etc. ad nuaseum, runs contradictory to your statements that you "support the constitution" and the mission statement.

[ClayTrainor]

Let me be perfectly clear about what she meant. She meant that converting people one at a time is an absolute waste of time. That's why elections are won on television and not at town halls.

Fair enough



She also means that when she stands on the corner at the Farmer's Market on Saturday and Sunday, people gravitate en masse toward the Constitution. If there is a 1% minority out there that would also come if natural law material were included, it wouldn't be worth including it to win over that 1%, and it's certainly not worth winning them over one at a time.

Thanks for clarifying, i agree. Your strategy in terms of democracy is a good one.



She knows that 99% of them could give a rat's ass about natural law, and that 100% are more interested in what we can do now than listening to somebody drone on and on about something they have no interest in.

Well, i think many people are interested in the world situation and the economic mess. I don't think the constitution is the only convincing argument to drag people into this movement, and believe many constitution supporters don't interpret it in the same way we do.



She also knows that you said to which I insinuated clearly means we obviously don't need to discuss natural law any farther because 99% of Americans believe in the Constitution and Constitutional arguments.


i think that 99% argument is a massive exaggeration, but i get what you're saying and agree in terms of elections. You have to agree that neo-cons also use constitutional arguments to support their positions, although we obviously disagree with the interpretation (because we support the natural law interpretation).

If that 99% doesn't understand why the constitution is important (natural law), there will be problems down the road, when they vote for someone who simply talks a good constitutional game. (W did this)

You have a good strategy to attain power, I have a good one on how to understand how to limit it.

This is why i support the constitutional activism on this forum, i beileve our candidates understand the natural law interpretation of it.



Here - go read this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871318784/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1902301579&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0TVT56F5P9N4P6R0J085
[/Quote]

My reading list is already soooooooo long, haha.

That looks like a good book for our activism though. I fully support your efforts of restoring the constitution. I just hope you maintain the natural law interpretation of it, as you encourage people to support it :)

[newbitech]

Natural Law can kiss my ass.

j/k of course.

Look, so you have a point great. How does it help? It doesn't. Most people who are standing up defending the Constitution in these wild threads that try to pit the Constitution vs "whatever they think is more important" are speaking from activist experience.

For instance, walk down any street in America knock on the doors and when the person answers, ask them this question. Does Constitutional Law trump natural law?

What do you think the response is going to be? I will tell you, you are going to get a look of utter confusion. Probably lots of "who cares", maybe a few "The Constitutions" and even fewer, "Natural Law". The only people who are going to give you the time of day are going to be the people who answered one or the other.

Now, do the same thing with this question. Would you like to know more about how to hold our leaders accountable to the oath they swore to the Constitution? I can guarantee that you will not only get more people who will answer positively, but you will have more people available to follow up with for further discussion. Even if they say, "sorry, now is not a good time". You can still quickly follow up with, "cool, understand that you are busy. I just wanted to make sure you knew that as your neighbor, I believe holding our leaders accountable to that oath is important, and here is what I am doing about it (hand them literature). Have a nice day (smiles all around).

Do the same and in place of "the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution", put in Natural Law. You may have well asked them if they wanted to know more about becoming a Jehovah Witness. (I don't knock these people, I respect what they are doing and I will spend 5 minutes allowing them to share their faith with me because I hope they are "saved" whatever that means to them).

So the point is, your question doesn't do ANY of what I listed above, and yet somehow you claim that your approach will be more effective. I just think that is bullshit because #1 you haven't tried it, and #2 if you did, then you ought to document what you have tried with a youtube so that at least others can learn from your experience.

So, I say YouTube or it didn't happen.

BTW, you should post that question to Ron Paul and get his feed back.

Ask him directly.

Does Natural Law trump the Constitution? Here is the thread to do it. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=214286

I see you have asked the questions, I will go ahead and update a little later.

[ClayTrainor]

I am frustrated by the sum total of the "constitution is a flawed document" debate. We all know that nothing created by man is perfect. You seem to think we don't know that and it is your job to explain that to us. Comments like (paraphrased) "I think all politicians should be extinct" "The spaceship crashed and burned" etc. ad nuaseum, runs contradictory to your statements that you "support the constitution" and the mission statement.

They aren't really contradictions, if you see where i'm coming from.

I'm saying the constitution didn't accomplish its intended job, which we all acknowledge. I believe it's because too many people ignore the natural law interpretation of it, or just ignore it altogether. This is a flaw in the constiution, imo, but doesn't totally discredit it.

We need to stand firmly on the natural law interpretation of the constitution, and understand the foundation of why the constitution is important. A lot of people in here regard the constitution as the foundation, and i hear a lot of similar talk from neo-cons. They will actually use their interpretation of the constitution to support their war-mongering arguments. But the natural law interpretation trumps them every time.

I just feel it's important to illustrate our interpretation of the constitution, more often, if our principles are going to live on after the elections are over. :)

Obviously people disagree, and that's fine. Be active in whatever what you find productive for our movement. :)

We don't need politicans to run our lives or keep us safe, but we might need to vote and get some activists into political positions, if we want to have a hope in hell of stopping this imperial machine, which the politicians have let run amok and are still running amok with.

I believe our candidates (the ones i support) are statesmen who also believe politicians should be extinct. They are going in to represent the natural law intepretation of the constitution, and attempt to limit the hell out of government :)

[ClayTrainor]

Humbug on this whole thread.

The New World Order is laughing at all of us, sitting around arguing how many angels can dance on the head of pin, while they erect the control grid around us.

I'm doing my part, as best I can, so is Mike and so is Clay.

Keep on doing what you do best and worry less about what the other guy's doing.

Fer Chrissakes, knock it off.

Alright, alright.

Anti-feds right. Michael, i'm with your activism 100%, and that's all that really matters here.

[ronpaulhawaii]

They aren't really contradictions, if you see where i'm coming from.

I'm saying the constitution didn't accomplish its intended job, which we all acknowledge. I believe it's because too many people ignore the natural law interpretation of it.

We need to stand firmly on the natural law interpretation of the constitution, and understand the foundation of why the constitution is important. A lot of people in here regard the constitution as the foundation, and i hear a lot of similar talk from neo-cons. They will actually use their interpretation of the constitution to support their war-mongering arguments. But the natural law interpretation trumps them every time.

I just feel it's important to illustrate our interpretation of the constitution, more often, if our principles are going to live on after the elections are over. :)

Obviously people disagree, and that's fine. Be active in whatever what you find productive for our movement. :)

We don't need politicans to run our lives or keep us safe, but we might need to vote and get some activists into political positions, if we want to have a hope in hell of stopping this imperial machine, which the politicians have let run amok.

I believe our candidates are statesmen who also believe politicians should be extinct. They are going in to represent the natural law intepretation, and attempt to limit the hell out of government :)


Who on this board do you think ignores the the inalienable rights aspect of our message?

Have you really found your continual repetition of your point productive for the purposes of this board?

You may not believe that that we "need politicians to run our lives for us" but I certainly think we need ones who understand constitutional and natural law to help us get to the point we are all seeking. Further, like it or not, for the vast majority of people, they think we need politicians, and many of them do not want the responsibilty of making sure contracts are being respected. They want others to do the job for them so they can concentrate on raising their kids. Whether or not that is necessary is irrelevant to them at this point in time and the continual promotion of anarchy not only turns them off, but makes us look like a debate club rather than serious political activists, doing what is necessary to win. AntiFed is is right. The NWO loves seeing intellectuals waste our time and resources on debate.

edit - just saw your reply to anti-fed and wish I had the 10 minutes back I just spent on this reply...

[ClayTrainor]

Who on this board do you think ignores the the inalienable rights aspect of our message?

Have you really found your continual repetition of your point productive for the purposes of this board?

You may not believe that that we "need politicians to run our lives for us" but I certainly think we need ones who understand constitutional and natural law to help us get to the point we are all seeking. Further, like it or not, for the vast majority of people, they think we need politicians, and many of them do not want the responsibilty of making sure contracts are being respected. They want others to do the job for them so they can concentrate on raising their kids. Whether or not that is necessary is irrelevant to them at this point in time and the continual promotion of anarchy not only turns them off, but makes us look like a debate club rather than serious political activists, doing what is necessary to win. AntiFed is is right. The NWO loves seeing intellectuals waste our time and resources on debate.

edit - just saw your reply to anti-fed and wish I had the 10 minutes back I just spent on this reply...

Yea man, all good points. We're so freaking close to the same page, these arguments are stupid.

I think we're both a little at fault here for carrying this thread out way further than it needed to go. My apologies, once again. :o

[Dr.3D]

Saying the Constitution failed is much like saying the pyramids in Egypt failed.
Through the erosion of wind and rain, the pyramids are not as beautiful as they once were, but they are still standing.

The Constitution has also been eroded through neglect and deceit but it still stands. It just needs to be renovated so it will again serve the original purpose it was designed to serve.

By renovated, I do not mean remade, but rather enforced as it was written.

[ClayTrainor]

Saying the Constitution failed is much like saying the pyramids in Egypt failed.
Through the erosion of wind and rain, the pyramids are not as beautiful as they once were, but they are still standing.

The Constitution has also been eroded through neglect and deceit but it still stands. It just needs to be renovated so it will again serve the original purpose it was designed to serve.

By renovated, I do not mean remade, but rather enforced as it was written.

I'm not going to bite this time, haha :o:p

I realize this is a thread to nowhere good, now :)

[Brian4Liberty]

http://coreygilmore.com/uploads/2007/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Of course Natural Law trumps Constitutional Law. I'll keep it succinct and just answer the thread title :)

As for political activism. I believe we shouldn't be telling people how -- or how not to -- to choose how they try to get the message out. Rough guidelines, or advice, sure, telling them not to do this, and only do this, runs counter-intuitive to our message, IMHO.

I've gotten quite a few converts by exposing them to the truth, without watering the message down. Each their own. I'm trying to ready a movement of radical activists, revolutionaries, not merely just for electoral processes. I do it respectively, earnestly, and honestly, while looking presentable. I think your appearance is of more importance than coming on "too strong".

I thought it was pretty funny, with the few meetups, and organizations I've gone to, where the LP county coordinator was there, and I was educational, while remaining "radical". I actually converted more people to the message, than the Neo-Cons that were there, just by using their own justifications against them. (They called themselves Constitutionalists. It helps to remember exactly Founder's quotes, positions, etc. and use it against them. Don't forget your history either)

It's kind of sad, in this country that we have to call ourselves radicals, when we should be called moderates. It just goes to show you where we went from 1776, to where we are now.

[Diogenese_]

Let me be perfectly clear about what she meant. She meant that converting people one at a time is an absolute waste of time]

Um - there is no way other than one at a time to convert anyone.... Each individual has to be presented with information sufficient to clarify the issues and help them make a solid decision. Clay's approach will work for many.

If you don't convert people one at a time you brain wash them with media.

Which is the "libertarian" choice?

[Aratus]

could this college tv course help us all define things???
http://www.justiceharvard.org/ the dude has
almost 800 harvardites try to squeeze into his lectures!

episodes 3 & 4 hone in on john locke and libertarianism as
episodes 1 & 2 tackle utilitarianism. keep in mind that
john locke had ideas about the arbitrary use of power that
did not have any democratic consent, and these ideas
influenced thomas jefferson. case in point... how does one
have a public townmeeting where one can get potholes filled
without creating needless dissidents? our more perfect union
requires a civic mindedness and attentively hard work...

[Aratus]

constitution law is natural law!

[angelatc]

Um - there is no way other than one at a time to convert anyone.... Each individual has to be presented with information sufficient to clarify the issues and help them make a solid decision. Clay's approach will work for many.

If you don't convert people one at a time you brain wash them with media.

Which is the "libertarian" choice?


That would pretty much explain the lack of success at the ballot box.

If Clay manages to convert one person a day, that's 365 a year. About 700 voters every election cycle. That's not going to win a School Board election here, and I'm pretty rural.

Face it - the interest in the libertarian wing of the GOP right now is only backlash from the failure of the neo-con/liberal 1-2 punch. 25+ years of impeccable logic has delivered us absolutely nothing. We have to cash in on the sentiment, and if that means "brainwashing" people with TV ads, then by God, that's what we need to do.

[Aratus]

HOUSE RESOLUTION 1207 with some 300 sponsors says that LIBERTARIANISM has the lamplight of reason shining brighter...

[ClayTrainor]

That would pretty much explain the lack of success at the ballot box.

If Clay manages to convert one person a day, that's 365 a year. About 700 voters every election cycle. That's not going to win a School Board election here, and I'm pretty rural.


To be fair, i didn't say my only strategy for liberty is to convert 1 individual at a time. I'm in marketing for a living, i know a little better than that. ;) I'm just emphasizing the importance of the natural law interpretation of the constitution, for those individuals who support it.

just had to speak for myself, so people don't think i'm a dumbass who tries to win this fight by converting just 1 person at a time.

p.s. What if some of the people i convert, also start echoing the same message? Wouldn't those 700 voters be even more?

[Aratus]

dude... if you know marketting and PR... why the edgy~ness?

dude... where is YOUR softsoap side? not all is bushwa and lies!

dude... not all is hardsell and a fecklessness. introverts must often

watch extroverts being politicians, yet there is the realm of ideas.

[heavenlyboy34]

FWIW,
"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin, quoted in Rebirth of Liberty, Carl Watner, 11 July 2005

[ClayTrainor]

dude... if you know marketting and PR... why the edgy~ness?



Am I being too Edgy? Not my intent...

Im not really into PR, I just know how to connect consumers to what they want.

I really was/am trying to be respectful in here...

[Aratus]

i'm gonzo. you got quite an edge. i sense this.
ideas are levers. they sometimes uplift people.
you need to find common ground intelligently
in order to influence a great many people. do stop
me before i go too 'norman vincent peale' on thee...

[Aratus]

i sometimes am too syllogistic.

natural law sometimes does not equal constitutional law.

sometimes natural law is constitutional law. i have a john locke thread here.

[ClayTrainor]

i'm gonzo. you got quite an edge. i sense this.
ideas are levers. they sometimes uplift people.
you need to find common ground intelligently
in order to influence a great many people. do stop
me before i go too 'norman vincent peale' on thee...

You are gonzo? Is this some kind of HST reference? :o

I agree, finding common ground is key, before you can influence.

[Aratus]

uncle duke! hunter s. thompson! yes...

[Aratus]

i must be gonzo. rpfan2008 thinks i toke daily.
i did so years ago, a few times in college...
i'm 50something and thinking of running for the
senate in 2012 in the bay state. seriously...

[ClayTrainor]

uncle duke! hunter s. thompson! yes...

So you understand the value of neurotransmitters then, when interpreting reality...glad to hear it :)

[Aratus]

ClayTrainer... i never thought that when i signed up here, i'd be opening a noble thread
about john locke in hot topics, and have my opinionatedly trite thread most correctly situated!

[Aratus]

So you understand
the value of neurotransmitters then,
when interpreting reality...glad to hear it :)

his magnus opus essay was on
dear ole paleontology in las vegas
concerning the reptiods amoungst us?

[ClayTrainor]

his magnus opus essay was on
dear ole paleontology in las vegas
concerning the reptiods amoungst us?

Did HST believe in reptilian conspiracies, or something?

[Aratus]

he did see plenty of lounge lizards in vegas...
perhaps that does qualify as a conspiracy of sorts.