PDA

View Full Version : New PRIVATE poll: Do you agree with Ron Paul ....




LibertyEagle
07-08-2010, 12:54 PM
Do you agree with Ron Paul that our nation should be restored to its Constitutional order?

Note: This is a redo. Sorry for the inconvenience. I was advised that more than a few were hesitant to vote in it, because the first one was a public poll. This one is private.

constituent
07-08-2010, 01:21 PM
Does that include repealing federal immigration laws? I'm confused. :confused:

low preference guy
07-08-2010, 01:22 PM
no.

Seraphim
07-08-2010, 01:26 PM
no.

explain?

low preference guy
07-08-2010, 01:27 PM
explain?

just messing up a lame thread.

jmdrake
07-08-2010, 02:16 PM
Does that include repealing federal immigration laws? I'm confused. :confused:

And let border states like Arizona enforce immigration as they see fit?

constituent
07-08-2010, 02:28 PM
And let border states like Arizona enforce immigration as they see fit?

Is that your position?

John Taylor
07-08-2010, 02:30 PM
And let border states like Arizona enforce immigration as they see fit?

Heck yeah, AZ would be MUCH more harsh if we had recognized popular sovereignty over the issue.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-08-2010, 02:32 PM
Would this Constitution be a Yes or No vote?
http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

RCA
07-08-2010, 02:33 PM
what's the purpose of this poll?

John Taylor
07-08-2010, 02:36 PM
Would this Constitution be a Yes or No vote?
http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

No, because some belief systems, while best dealt with through education, are inherently arrayed in vehement opposition of private property rights, a constitutional order, and the preservation of individual liberty. The exclusion of people adopting such perspectives may unfortunately be found necessary to sustain a free society.

BuddyRey
07-08-2010, 03:18 PM
As an Antifederalist, I view the Constitution as a betrayal of the 1776 revolution, especially since it was adopted in haste and without the presence of many of the founding fathers who no doubt had much to say about its contents at the time. I do think the Constitution is an admirable benchmark for us to work toward, but it's far from perfect.

erowe1
07-08-2010, 03:25 PM
I don't understand the question.

Could you provide a link to where RP said this, so that we could read the quote in context before saying if we agree or not?

t0rnado
07-08-2010, 03:30 PM
As an Antifederalist, I view the Constitution as a betrayal of the 1776 revolution, especially since it was adopted in haste and without the presence of many of the founding fathers who no doubt had much to say about its contents at the time. I do think the Constitution is an admirable benchmark for us to work toward, but it's far from perfect.

That is also my reasoning for voting "NO". The Constitution was supported by Federalists like Alexander Hamilton over the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution gives the federal government too much power.

erowe1
07-08-2010, 03:35 PM
The Constitution gives the federal government too much power.

I agree. And I think RP does too, which is part of why I'm confused by the wording of this poll.

tremendoustie
07-08-2010, 03:39 PM
Do you agree with Ron Paul that our nation should be restored to its Constitutional order?

Note: This is a redo. Sorry for the inconvenience. I was advised that more than a few were hesitant to vote in it, because the first one was a public poll. This one is private.

As a voluntaryist, I say yes!! To restore the constitution would move us 80% or more towards liberty, from where we currently are. Far more people will be able to live out their lives and use their finances as they choose.

A win win for everyone! (Well, except maybe the politicians and central bankers).

tremendoustie
07-08-2010, 03:40 PM
To support restoring the constitution does not mean that's your ultimate goal or ideal, people.

I'll wait while you seven deviants change your vote ;).

heavenlyboy34
07-08-2010, 03:41 PM
As an Antifederalist, I view the Constitution as a betrayal of the 1776 revolution, especially since it was adopted in haste and without the presence of many of the founding fathers who no doubt had much to say about its contents at the time. I do think the Constitution is an admirable benchmark for us to work toward, but it's far from perfect.

+10000000000 :cool:

tremendoustie
07-08-2010, 03:42 PM
As an Antifederalist, I view the Constitution as a betrayal of the 1776 revolution, especially since it was adopted in haste and without the presence of many of the founding fathers who no doubt had much to say about its contents at the time. I do think the Constitution is an admirable benchmark for us to work toward, but it's far from perfect.

Agreed. But, undoubtedly, it's a massive improvement over what we have now.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-08-2010, 03:45 PM
I agree. And I think RP does too, which is part of why I'm confused by the wording of this poll.

If the question is false that is an automatic "no"

erowe1
07-08-2010, 03:45 PM
To support restoring the constitution does not mean that's your ultimate goal or ideal, people.


I agree. But that gets back to my question about what the poll is asking.

If some people are interpreting it as asking whether a constitutionally circumscribed federal government would be an improvement over the status quo, while others are interpreting it as asking if that would be the ideal, then the results in the numbers of yeses and noes won't really tell us anything.

And the fact that LE asked the question in a way that imputes this view to RP doesn't help, since I think RP's own view of the Constitution may be pretty much the same as yours.

low preference guy
07-08-2010, 03:47 PM
what's the purpose of this poll?

waste your time?

erowe1
07-08-2010, 03:48 PM
If the question is false that is an automatic "no"

I'm not sure if the question is false. That's why I asked for LE to provide a link to where RP says this so that we can read it in context. It may turn out to be that in context, he's expressing something that comports with what Tremendoustie said, in which case, I would definitely answer yes.

tremendoustie
07-08-2010, 03:49 PM
I agree. But that gets back to my question about what the poll is asking.

If some people are interpreting it as asking whether a constitutionally circumscribed federal government would be an improvement over the status quo, while others are interpreting it as asking if that would be the ideal, then the results in the numbers of yeses and noes won't really tell us anything.

And the fact that LE asked the question in a way that imputes this view to RP doesn't help, since I think RP's own view of the Constitution may be pretty much the same as yours.

Fair point.

South Park Fan
07-08-2010, 04:17 PM
I don't like the wording of the question. I would definitely find a restoration of Constitutional order to be an improvement over our current situation, and I would support it to that extent. However, I think that there are better alternatives.

specsaregood
07-08-2010, 04:45 PM
I would definitely find a restoration of Constitutional order to be an improvement over our current situation, and I would support it to that extent. However, I think that there are better alternatives.
I think most of us would welcome the day when debates about "better" alternatives could be taken seriously instead of acting as philosophical masterbation. I think getting back to the restoration of constitutional order would herald that day as at hand.

libertybrewcity
07-08-2010, 04:47 PM
isn't this ron paul forums?

erowe1
07-08-2010, 04:53 PM
isn't this ron paul forums?

Yes. Maybe that's why so many people agree with Ron Paul that the Constitution has pragmatic value as a tool to ameliorate the evils of our federal government but that it is also not the most ideal plan for government.

jmdrake
07-08-2010, 05:13 PM
Is that your position?

Not really. Because of this.


Heck yeah, AZ would be MUCH more harsh if we had recognized popular sovereignty over the issue.

But if the only way to have any border enforcement at all is to let the John Taylors of the world go hog wild I guess that's better than nothing. As the old saying goes...be careful what you wish for.

Dr.3D
07-08-2010, 07:28 PM
Seems rather interesting that 76 people have voted so far.

66 yes
10 no

Anti Federalist
07-08-2010, 07:30 PM
As an Antifederalist, I view the Constitution as a betrayal of the 1776 revolution, especially since it was adopted in haste and without the presence of many of the founding fathers who no doubt had much to say about its contents at the time. I do think the Constitution is an admirable benchmark for us to work toward, but it's far from perfect.

That ^^^

I would support the idea however, based on the fact that it's light years better than what we have become and have now.

So I vote yes.

Dr.3D
07-09-2010, 12:26 AM
I agree. And I think RP does too, which is part of why I'm confused by the wording of this poll.

I believe what is being asked here is if you agree with Ron Paul and what he says @3:00 in this video.


YouTube - Champion of the Constitution: Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvgBBKIQ_a8)

libertarian4321
07-09-2010, 05:00 AM
I voted yes even though I don't think the Constitution is perfect.

While imperfect, I believe it should be fixed, rather than ignored as our current government does.

someperson
07-09-2010, 05:21 AM
Dr. Paul most certainly does not want to enforce the constitution as it stands, today. For example, I think we've all had enough of the 16th amendment ;) He's applauded the efforts of those individuals who have committed civil disobedience and paid the consequences for their non-compliance with that part of the constitution.

Everything else that I wanted to say has been said already.

someperson
07-09-2010, 06:02 AM
Oh, and just for fun ;)

YouTube - I'm Allowed to Rob You - Why? Because My Friends "Gave Me Permission" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD403P3zk-c)

Dr.3D
07-09-2010, 09:14 AM
Well, so far it looks like around 90% here agree with Ron Paul on restoring the constitution.

BuddyRey
07-09-2010, 09:18 AM
Oh, and just for fun ;)

YouTube - I'm Allowed to Rob You - Why? Because My Friends "Gave Me Permission" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD403P3zk-c)

One of my all-time favorites!

erowe1
07-09-2010, 09:52 AM
Well, so far it looks like around 90% here agree with Ron Paul on restoring the constitution.

It's actually probably about 100%. Since the people who said no probably generally agree with the viewpoint Tremendoustie expressed above.

I think a better poll question might have been, "Do you agree with Ron Paul that, although limiting the federal government to the powers enumerated in the Constitution would be a step in the right direction, the ideal would be far less government than what the Constitution itself authorizes?"

Edit: In light of the way this thread has gone, I did end up voting yes on this question.

Deborah K
07-09-2010, 10:01 AM
I am heartened by the results, so far, of this poll.

.Tom
07-09-2010, 10:52 AM
The Constitution sucks. Even the AOC were better, and this is coming from an anarchist. Sure, it'd be better than what we have now, but I don't see restoring it as enough.

Deborah K
07-09-2010, 10:54 AM
The Constitution sucks. Even the AOC were better, and this is coming from an anarchist. Sure, it'd be better than what we have now, but I don't see restoring it as enough.

All babies crawl before they walk.

Reason
07-09-2010, 10:56 AM
What does that even mean...

JoshLowry
07-09-2010, 11:09 AM
what's the purpose of this poll?

LE and I had a disagreement over what most of the membership believes.

There is a small but vocal percentage here that has always disagreed with RP's politicking, however it's not anywhere near a majority imo.

JeNNiF00F00
07-09-2010, 11:15 AM
>:)

Dr.3D
07-09-2010, 11:15 AM
LE and I had a disagreement over what most of the membership believes.

There is a small but vocal percentage here that has always disagreed with RP's politicking, however it's not anywhere near a majority imo.

Well, the impression I get from most of the posts in these forums for the past six to eight months, made me believe most here disagree with Ron Paul as to the need to even have a constitution, let alone trying to restore the following of it.

CCTelander
07-09-2010, 11:37 AM
Would this Constitution be a Yes or No vote?
http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html


Gets an unequivocal yes vote from me. ;)

That's the Covenant, not the poll.

Dr.3D
07-09-2010, 11:42 AM
Would this Constitution be a Yes or No vote?
http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

The Constitution being referred to in this poll is the one we currently have in place and is known as the United States Constitution. That is the one Ron Paul would like to reinstate into compliance. Currently, the federal government has been ignoring a lot of what is written in the United States Constitution.

erowe1
07-09-2010, 11:46 AM
most here disagree with Ron Paul as to the need to even have a constitution.

Did RP really say we need to have a constitution? Could you link to that quote?

tremendoustie
07-09-2010, 11:59 AM
Well, the impression I get from most of the posts in these forums for the past six to eight months, made me believe most here disagree with Ron Paul as to the need to even have a constitution, let alone trying to restore the following of it.

I don't think we ultimately need the federal government, or therefore a constitution.

But, I think shrinking the current federal government to fit within the bounds described by the constitution is a very worthy goal, so I voted "yes".

RCA
07-09-2010, 12:07 PM
I'm going to choose option 3:

We have to restore it before we can improve upon it.

Anarchy.......Constitution........................ .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................................where we are now.

Let's improve, then perfect.

RonPaulFanInGA
07-09-2010, 12:09 PM
LE and I had a disagreement over what most of the membership believes.

There is a small but vocal percentage here that has always disagreed with RP's politicking, however it's not anywhere near a majority imo.

Anarchists are always more loud than numerous.

BuddyRey
07-09-2010, 12:10 PM
I'm going to choose option 3:

We have to restore it before we can improve upon it.

Anarchy.......Constitution........................ .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................................where we are now.

Let's improve, then perfect.

Great answer!!!

CCTelander
07-09-2010, 12:11 PM
Anarchists are always more loud than numerous.


They're also more right than numerous! ;)

Dr.3D
07-09-2010, 12:12 PM
Did RP really say we need to have a constitution? Could you link to that quote?

I thought I had already answered your question back in post #32.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2784564&postcount=32

erowe1
07-09-2010, 12:13 PM
I'm going to choose option 3:

We have to restore it before we can improve upon it.

Anarchy.......Constitution........................ .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................................where we are now.

Let's improve, then perfect.


I agree somewhat, but would be slightly less generous to the Constitution.

I think it looks like this:

Anarchy.......Declaration of Independence...Ron Paul......................................... .......................... .............................. .....................................Constitution. ................ .................................. ........................... ................................. Where we are now

Using this diagram, which I think it pretty accurate, albeit simplified and approximate, I would say, yes, I agree with Ron Paul.

RCA
07-09-2010, 12:15 PM
Great answer!!!


Thanks. Setting the Constitution as our goal, even if temporary, gives us a litmus test for the morality of the body politic.

ClayTrainor
07-09-2010, 12:15 PM
Did RP really say we need to have a constitution? Could you link to that quote?

My guess would be no, based on...


"What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

4m5s
youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=4m5s
YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Civil Disobedience, Self-Government & More with Motorhome Diaries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=4m5s)

RCA
07-09-2010, 12:15 PM
I agree somewhat, but would be slightly less generous to the Constitution.

I think it looks like this:

Anarchy.......Declaration of Independence...Ron Paul......................................... .......................... .............................. .....................................Constitution. ................ .................................. ........................... ................................. Where we are now

My illustration was EXTREMELY truncated.

;)

erowe1
07-09-2010, 12:17 PM
I thought I had already answered your question back in post #32.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2784564&postcount=32

No, you didn't. You referred to his "I take my marching orders from the Constitution" response to Giuliani's charge that he took his marching orders from the terrorists.

That quote doesn't really prove anything that couldn't fit with the views that have been expressed here so many people here who believe the Constitution prescribes too much government.

JoshLowry
07-09-2010, 12:17 PM
They're also more right than numerous! ;)

But the small government goal post is more realistic than voluntaryism.

Dr.3D
07-09-2010, 12:19 PM
No, you didn't. You referred to his "I take my marching orders from the Constitution response to Giuliani's charge that he took his marching orders from the terrorists."

That quote doesn't really prove anything that couldn't fit with the views that have been expressed here so many people here who believe the Constitution prescribes too much government.

Just listen to the start of the video where Ron Paul claims he is the "champion of the constitution."

erowe1
07-09-2010, 12:24 PM
Just listen to the start of the video where Ron Paul claims he is the "champion of the constitution."

Before I do something that I might decide afterward was a waste of my time, are you just talking about the "champion of the Constitution" line? Or is there something else he says about the quality of the Constitution relative to other less statist options that goes deeper than the bumper sticker slogans you seem to think serve as systematic expositions of his political philosophy?

RCA
07-09-2010, 12:26 PM
But the small government goal post is more realistic than voluntaryism.

This my new theory:

pro-life:abortion
voluntarism:statism

I'm truly undecided if I'm against early abortions, but I'm definitely against late abortions. Thus by default, I HAVE to be against all abortions since a line can't be drawn anywhere.

The same goes for voluntarism. I haven't fully converted to voluntarism yet, but I'm definitely against statism. Thus by default, I HAVE to be for voluntarism.

That being said, the human race hasn't advanced enough to except pure voluntarism, so I will settle for fighting for Constitutional principles until we make further progress.

JoshLowry
07-09-2010, 12:29 PM
That being said, the human race hasn't advanced enough to except pure voluntarism, so I will settle for fighting for Constitutional principles until we make further progress.

I'm in the same boat.

Voluntaryism and the NAP are correct in principle, but at the moment we're not anywhere close to that bridge. We've got 100 others to cross first.

If we were able to whittle down to a small founding father type government, I'd probably become apathetic in activism for anything smaller.

Dr.3D
07-09-2010, 12:33 PM
Before I do something that I might decide afterward was a waste of my time, are you just talking about the "champion of the Constitution" line? Or is there something else he says about the quality of the Constitution relative to other less statist options that goes deeper than the bumper sticker slogans you seem to think serve as systematic expositions of his political philosophy?

He doesn't say much more in that video, but here is another where he says he is a "very strong advocate of following the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States." He says it right at the start of the video, so you won't have to waste any of your time.

YouTube - Ron Paul - Back to the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbk3hDXxCpA)

RCA
07-09-2010, 12:34 PM
I'm in the same boat.

Voluntaryism and the NAP are correct in principle, but at the moment we're not anywhere close to that bridge. We've got 100 others to cross first.

If we were able to whittle down to a small founding father type government, I'd probably become apathetic in activism for anything smaller.

Unless you realized that history would just repeat itself. An advanced civilization would learn from past mistakes and correct them when given the opportunity.

RCA
07-09-2010, 12:39 PM
He doesn't say much more in that video, but here is another where he says he is a "very strong advocate of following the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States." He says it right at the start of the video, so you won't have to waste any of your time.

YouTube - Ron Paul - Back to the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbk3hDXxCpA)

But it's not a zero-sum game. All because he wants to follow the Constitution doesn't mean he doesn't want something different if given the chance or thought it were possible.

JoshLowry
07-09-2010, 12:42 PM
Unless you realized that history would just repeat itself. An advanced civilization would learn from past mistakes and correct them when given the opportunity.

Amend the constitution?

catdd
07-09-2010, 12:45 PM
13 people actually said no to that here?

Dr.3D
07-09-2010, 12:52 PM
But it's not a zero-sum game. All because he wants to follow the Constitution doesn't mean he doesn't want something different if given the chance or thought it were possible.

That doesn't matter to this poll. Right now it would seem the goal is to get back to following the Constitution, after that, something different might be possible. We can't just go from where we are now to something different and better without some steps in between.

erowe1
07-09-2010, 12:54 PM
He doesn't say much more in that video, but here is another where he says he is a "very strong advocate of following the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States." He says it right at the start of the video, so you won't have to waste any of your time.

YouTube - Ron Paul - Back to the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbk3hDXxCpA)

That just gets back to the same problem. What have any of the anti-federalists, anarchists, voluntarists, or whatever, said here that he contradicts in that quote?

For all the faults of the Constitution, one good thing about it is that it doesn't have much in the way of telling the federal government what it must do. It mainly tells it what it may or may not do. So government agents could be following it if they did all that it permits, but they could also be following it if they did much less than what it permits, so long as they don't do more.

So even people like Thomas Jefferson or Ron Paul who believe the Constitution permits too much government can still make use of the Constitution for pragmatic reasons in trying to reign in others who wish to go beyond it. The argument that those people took an oath to do nothing beyond what the Constitution allows is still a perfectly valid and non-hypocritical argument.

Here's an analogy. If the Mafia extorted "taxes" from me and made a promise to me that it would never take more than $100 a month, and then one day one of their thugs came by demanding $200 for that month, I may not agree with their right to take anything at all, and I may not recognize their promise as something that legitimately grants them the authority to take $100/month, but I sure as shootin' would try to talk that gangster into keeping the promise the Mafia had made to me. Granted, I don't expect that he would care any more about that promise than most of the gangsters in DC care about the Constitution. But I would still at least try that line on him.

RCA
07-09-2010, 12:59 PM
Amend the constitution?

The only possible amendment that would make sense, if society had in fact advanced that far, would be a modernized form of the Declaration of Independence from ALL types of conscription. The document could then be auctioned off in a private charity.

;)

RCA
07-09-2010, 01:00 PM
That doesn't matter to this poll. Right now it would seem the goal is to get back to following the Constitution, after that, something different might be possible. We can't just go from where we are now to something different and better without some steps in between.

Which is why I chose option 3.

:eek:

ClayTrainor
07-09-2010, 01:01 PM
That just gets back to the same problem. What have any of the anti-federalists, anarchists, voluntarists, or whatever, said here that he contradicts in that quote?

For all the faults of the Constitution, one good thing about it is that it doesn't have much in the way of telling the federal government what it must do. It mainly tells it what it may or may not do. So government agents could be following it if they did all that it permits, but they could also be following it if they did much less than what it permits, so long as they don't do more.

So even people like Thomas Jefferson or Ron Paul who believe the Constitution permits too much government can still make use of the Constitution for pragmatic reasons in trying to reign in others who wish to go beyond it. The argument that those people took an oath to do nothing beyond what the Constitution allows is still a perfectly valid and non-hypocritical argument.

Here's an analogy. If the Mafia extorted "taxes" from me and made a promise to me that it would never take more than $100 a month, and then one day one of their thugs came by demanding $200 for that month, I may not agree with their right to take anything at all, and I may not recognize their promise as something that legitimately grants them the authority to take $100/month, but I sure as shootin' would try to talk that gangster into keeping the promise the Mafia had made to me. Granted, I don't expect that he would care any more about that promise than most of the gangsters in DC care about the Constitution. But I would still at least try that line on him.

That's extremely well put... Thanks for that. :)

teamrican1
07-09-2010, 01:01 PM
13 people actually said no to that here?

The Constitution has been tried. It led us to where we are now. And this wasn't some kind of surprise either. The Anti-Federalists predicted the Constitution would take us down this path, which is why they opposed it. What we need to do is return to the Articles of Confederation or something even less centralized.

RCA
07-09-2010, 01:07 PM
The Constitution has been tried. It led us to where we are now. And this wasn't some kind of surprise either. The Anti-Federalists predicted the Constitution would take us down this path, which is why they opposed it. What we need to do is return to the Articles of Confederation or something even less centralized.

But we can't go directly there. We have to do it in increments, and many of those increments also follow the Constitution, so why not leverage it to your advantage if you can? What works, works, right?

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 01:20 PM
The Constitution has been declared deemed NULL and VOID because the founders did not have law licenses and were legally incompetent to bind subsequent generations to any matter of law they were unlicensed to practice.

Bullshit, states had bars then, just as states have bars today. Patrick Henry was admitted to the VA bar, and practicing attorneys were members of bars all throughout the states in 1776, and in 1787.

Dr.3D
07-09-2010, 01:39 PM
That just gets back to the same problem. What have any of the anti-federalists, anarchists, voluntarists, or whatever, said here that he contradicts in that quote?

For all the faults of the Constitution, one good thing about it is that it doesn't have much in the way of telling the federal government what it must do. It mainly tells it what it may or may not do. So government agents could be following it if they did all that it permits, but they could also be following it if they did much less than what it permits, so long as they don't do more.

So even people like Thomas Jefferson or Ron Paul who believe the Constitution permits too much government can still make use of the Constitution for pragmatic reasons in trying to reign in others who wish to go beyond it. The argument that those people took an oath to do nothing beyond what the Constitution allows is still a perfectly valid and non-hypocritical argument.

Here's an analogy. If the Mafia extorted "taxes" from me and made a promise to me that it would never take more than $100 a month, and then one day one of their thugs came by demanding $200 for that month, I may not agree with their right to take anything at all, and I may not recognize their promise as something that legitimately grants them the authority to take $100/month, but I sure as shootin' would try to talk that gangster into keeping the promise the Mafia had made to me. Granted, I don't expect that he would care any more about that promise than most of the gangsters in DC care about the Constitution. But I would still at least try that line on him.

So that would mean you vote yes on this poll. Whew, glad that is settled.

erowe1
07-09-2010, 01:40 PM
So that would mean you vote yes on this poll. Whew, glad that is settled.

Yeah, like I said a long time ago.

RCA
07-09-2010, 01:45 PM
So that would mean you vote yes on this poll. Whew, glad that is settled.

The poll is misleading and incomplete so I opted out.

Dr.3D
07-09-2010, 01:52 PM
I've wasted enough time trying to explain this poll. It's like some people are living in another world or some kind of make believe fantasy land. I just wish everybody would stop living in the world they wish existed and would get back to the business of changing the one we are living in.

Ninja Homer
07-09-2010, 02:08 PM
The poll question needs to be clarified. Either quote Ron Paul talking about restoring the nation to Constitutional order, or define Constitutional order.

tremendoustie
07-09-2010, 02:11 PM
I'm in the same boat.

Voluntaryism and the NAP are correct in principle, but at the moment we're not anywhere close to that bridge. We've got 100 others to cross first.

If we were able to whittle down to a small founding father type government, I'd probably become apathetic in activism for anything smaller.

Fair enough, I think that's a valid perspective.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 02:14 PM
Bullshit, states had bars then, just as states have bars today. Patrick Henry was admitted to the VA bar, and practicing attorneys were members of bars all throughout the states in 1776, and in 1787.

By all means join my new thread so we can open a can about the modern Bar Association criminal enterprise. Should be an interesting discussion about corporate filings, Certificates issued by the Supreme Court, licensing versus occupations of common right, and treason.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2785419#post2785419

tremendoustie
07-09-2010, 02:18 PM
But the small government goal post is more realistic than voluntaryism.

Hey, I say, push for voluntaryism and maybe we'll at least get small government ;)

You know, kind of like how the socialists always push for a 20% increase in spending, and at least get 10%.

But, I respect those who push for small government too -- it takes all kinds, and different arguments appeal to different people.

tremendoustie
07-09-2010, 02:22 PM
I agree somewhat, but would be slightly less generous to the Constitution.

I think it looks like this:

Anarchy.......Declaration of Independence...Ron Paul......................................... .......................... .............................. .....................................Constitution. ................ .................................. ........................... ................................. Where we are now

Using this diagram, which I think it pretty accurate, albeit simplified and approximate, I would say, yes, I agree with Ron Paul.

Now, where's the AOC go? :D

erowe1
07-09-2010, 03:43 PM
Now, where's the AOC go? :D

I think somewhere around half way between where RP is and where the Constitution is.

catdd
07-09-2010, 03:52 PM
The Constitution has been tried. It led us to where we are now. And this wasn't some kind of surprise either. The Anti-Federalists predicted the Constitution would take us down this path, which is why they opposed it. What we need to do is return to the Articles of Confederation or something even less centralized.

The constitution didn't lead us here it's people who do not respect the constitution lead us here.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 04:10 PM
The constitution didn't lead us here it's people who do not respect the constitution lead us here.

Sounds like a good argument for ending the monopoly on force and subjecting it to competition... otherwise the wrong kind of people might use a monopoly of force for their own ill gotten gains.

Fredom101
07-09-2010, 04:20 PM
I said "No" because it simply can't.
We tried using a piece of paper to stop the growth of government, and it failed miserably. We know it doesn't work, so why do we think we can "get back" to the constitution?

Deborah K
07-09-2010, 05:43 PM
What does that even mean...

It means we have to start somewhere. For some, adherence to the Constitution would be like a baby crawling, then when the baby learns to walk, it would be like the mindset of society eventually evolving into total freedom.

catdd
07-09-2010, 05:45 PM
I said "No" because it simply can't.
We tried using a piece of paper to stop the growth of government, and it failed miserably. We know it doesn't work, so why do we think we can "get back" to the constitution?

So why would you bother to vote for Ron Paul?

Vessol
07-09-2010, 10:21 PM
So why would you bother to vote for Ron Paul?

Perhaps because Ron Paul is an educational tool?

What I mean by that, is that through politics it's much more easier to teach people about Liberty.

And our nation was subverted from the start.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/davies2.1.1.html

catdd
07-09-2010, 10:33 PM
I'm talking about him actually being president and doing whatever he can to restore the constitution.

LibertyEagle
07-10-2010, 09:08 PM
I agree somewhat, but would be slightly less generous to the Constitution.

I think it looks like this:

Anarchy.......Declaration of Independence...Ron Paul......................................... .......................... .............................. .....................................Constitution. ................ .................................. ........................... ................................. Where we are now

Using this diagram, which I think it pretty accurate, albeit simplified and approximate, I would say, yes, I agree with Ron Paul.

Then explain why Ron Paul refers to himself as the champion of the Constitution. It does not appear that this fact fits your diagram so well.

ViniVidiVici
07-10-2010, 09:13 PM
What is this constitution you speak of?

LibertyEagle
07-10-2010, 09:18 PM
Ron Paul on the Constitution: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=15

low preference guy
07-10-2010, 09:20 PM
Then explain why Ron Paul refers to himself as the champion of the Constitution. It does not appear that this fact fits your diagram so well.

I'm pretty sure Ron would've opposed the Constitution and sticked with the Articles of Confederation had he been alive at the time.

tremendoustie
07-10-2010, 09:23 PM
Then explain why Ron Paul refers to himself as the champion of the Constitution. It does not appear that this fact fits your diagram so well.

Because the constitution is an excellent tool to shrink government, and increase liberty. To "champion" or "advocate" that the constitution be followed, these days, is to advocate the restraint of government. To advocate that the government stay within the bounds of the constitution does not imply that you believe the constitution is perfect, or even, for that matter, that a constitutional republic is ideal.

thehunter
07-10-2010, 09:29 PM
The US Constitution isn't perfect, but as a document it's an effective place to start from -- a society set in liberty needs to have clear ground rules that its citizens clearly understand if there is to be any hope of freedom taking root. Some of the biggest travesties I have seen politicians commit over the years involves overreaching for power (eg. one level of government absorbing the management of either private enterprise or another level's clear jurisdiction) and the abandonment of the rule of law.

Sadly, with the Arizona case, we have one level trying to overreach (Arizona) at the same time that another level is ignoring the rule of law (the Feds). The bill is fairly simple in that it looks to uphold the existing laws of the land that require visitors to the country to show identification but as the feds aren't living up to the responsibilities that come with creating law, Arizona is effectively calling Washington's bluff. No one will come out of this one clean though.

Getting back to the constitution, one criticism I think we as libertarians need to look at is that, as a movement, we'll attach ourselves to any counter-government initiative, including those that can discredit us and do more harm than good. A case of this is the story of Marc Emery, who many libers support for his work in snubbing the US anti-drug laws --as much as I can respect folks disputing the laws, it does not vindicate anyone, like Emery, getting upset when they are expected to face the consequences of breaking the law. There is a way to approach reform and in simple, human matters, throwing out the rule book is not an option. We have seen socialism become all too willing to bend/break the rules to advance its ideology and without a firm commitment to the rule of law, I am afraid that libertarians are conceding ground needlessly. It's for that reason that I'm in favour of this poll's question -- not a perfect scenario, but a good place to start!

tremendoustie
07-10-2010, 10:22 PM
A case of this is the story of Marc Emery, who many libers support for his work in snubbing the US anti-drug laws --as much as I can respect folks disputing the laws, it does not vindicate anyone, like Emery, getting upset when they are expected to face the consequences of breaking the law. There is a way to approach reform and in simple, human matters, throwing out the rule book is not an option.


I couldn't disagree more. For example, it was at one time against federal law to harbor an escaped slave. Would you oppose the actions of Harriet Tubman, or others who worked on the underground railroad? Would you advocate their arrest?

Immoral laws should not be obeyed or enforced.



We have seen socialism become all too willing to bend/break the rules to advance its ideology and without a firm commitment to the rule of law,


But, all actions are not equal. Acting violently, aggressively, and tyrannically, is immoral behavior, regardless of what the law says.

The problem with socialism is not that it breaks the rules. The problem with socialism is that it is violent, aggressive, and tyrannical.



I'm in favour of this poll's question -- not a perfect scenario, but a good place to start!

We agree there :). I'm a fan of anyone who advocates for more liberty. Personally, I advocate voluntaryism, but I recognize that constitutionalists make a valuable contribution to the liberty movement as well. We're unlikely to get to liberty in one fell swoop -- working to roll back the state is vital.

erowe1
07-11-2010, 03:58 PM
Getting back to the constitution, one criticism I think we as libertarians need to look at is that, as a movement, we'll attach ourselves to any counter-government initiative, including those that can discredit us and do more harm than good. A case of this is the story of Marc Emery, who many libers support for his work in snubbing the US anti-drug laws --as much as I can respect folks disputing the laws, it does not vindicate anyone, like Emery, getting upset when they are expected to face the consequences of breaking the law. There is a way to approach reform and in simple, human matters, throwing out the rule book is not an option.

I take it you're not a fan of the Declaration of Independence then.

YumYum
07-11-2010, 04:02 PM
just [...] messing up a thread.

You have a habit of doing that.

low preference guy
07-11-2010, 04:09 PM
You have a habit of doing that.

when you quote someone, eliminating words in the middle without writing [...] is bad form.

also, you're talking about the lame thread you started about a neocon pretending to be a ron paul supporter? don't blame me for the thread YOU messed up by writing a title that wasn't supported by the OP. at least 3 people called you on that, so if you want to blame someone for your lame thread, look in the mirror.

erowe1
07-11-2010, 04:10 PM
Then explain why Ron Paul refers to himself as the champion of the Constitution. It does not appear that this fact fits your diagram so well.

I don't see how it doesn't fit. I think Ron Paul's philosophy fits very well within what a lot of people have already said here about why they voted yes (as well as fitting many things Ron Paul himself has said in forums that provided better opportunity to explain the intricacies of his views than the bumper sticker "champion of the Constitution"-type slogans you get in presidential debates). Championing the Constitution has pragmatic value for us as a great improvement over the status quo, even though in an ideal world we should be able to do much better than that. What about that seems inconsistent to you?

YumYum
07-11-2010, 04:15 PM
when you quote someone, eliminating words in the middle without writing [...] is bad form.

also, you're talking about the lame thread you started about a neocon pretending to be a ron paul supporter? don't blame me for the thread YOU messed up by writing a title that wasn't supported by the OP. at least 3 people called you on that, so if you want to blame someone for your lame thread, look in the mirror.

The only thing you can do is ad hominem attacks. Too bad your not good at it, you could get a job at Fox News.

low preference guy
07-11-2010, 04:17 PM
The only thing you can do is ad hominem attacks. Too bad your not good at it, you could get a job at Fox News.

doing ad hominem attacks and presenting arguments are different things.

exercise for yum yum: is the following an attempt to present an argument or an ad hominem attack?


YOU messed up by writing a title that wasn't supported by the OP

also, is this an ad hominem attack? it sounds like the truth to me.


when you quote someone, eliminating words in the middle without writing [...] is bad form.

YumYum
07-11-2010, 04:22 PM
doing ad hominem attacks and presenting arguments are different things.

exercise for yum yum: is the following an attempt to present an argument or an ad hominem attack?



also, is this an ad hominem attack? it sounds like the truth to me.

You admitted that you like to mess up threads. I said I noticed that to be true.

Now your going to deny that you mess up threads?

heavenlyboy34
07-11-2010, 04:31 PM
Heck yeah, AZ would be MUCH more harsh if we had recognized popular sovereignty over the issue.

Not likely. The issue divides Arizonans quite sharply. There are plenty of mainstream conservatives who are more realistic/pragmatic (though they still aren't correct). You also ought to offer up some evidence for that claim, ya know. ;)

low preference guy
07-11-2010, 04:32 PM
You admitted that you like to mess up threads. I said I noticed that to be true.

I didn't say I "liked" doing it. You made that up. Also, I said "lame thread". So your "quote" of my post is not a real quote, since it's just your modification of my statement.

And the truth is, I don't mind messing up a lame thread, but I don't like doing it, because I wish they didn't exist.


Now your going to deny that you mess up threads?


Where do you get this idea? Where have I denied messing up lame threads?

YumYum
07-11-2010, 04:35 PM
I didn't say I "liked" doing it. You made that up. Also, I said "lame thread". So your "quote" of my post is not a real quote, since it's just your modification of my statement.

And the truth is, I don't mind messing up a lame thread, but I don't like doing it, because I wish they didn't exist.



Where do you get this idea? Where have I denied messing up lame threads?

Who are you to call Liberty Eagle's thoughtful post "lame"? What is so "lame" about it? It is an excellent question.

low preference guy
07-11-2010, 04:38 PM
Who are you to call Liberty Eagle's thoughtful post "lame"? What is so "lame" about it? It is an excellent question.

I'll answer you, but first answer the questions I previously posted to you.


is the following an attempt to present an argument or an ad hominem attack?


also, is this an ad hominem attack? it sounds like the truth to me.


Where do you get this idea? Where have I denied messing up lame threads?

And an additional one: Why do you dishonestly put a statement you made up in the form of a quote from me?

YumYum
07-11-2010, 04:40 PM
I'll answer you, but first answer the questions I previously posted to you.

And an additional one: Why do you dishonestly put a statement you made up in the form of a quote from me?

Answer my question: Why do you call Liberty Eagle's thread "lame"? That is insulting and against forum rules.

low preference guy
07-11-2010, 04:40 PM
Answer my question: Why do you call Liberty Eagle's thread "lame"? That is insulting and against forum rules.

Why should I answer your questions before you answer my questions which I asked first?

YumYum
07-11-2010, 04:42 PM
Why should I answer your questions before you answer my questions which I asked first?

You are the one that attacked Liberty Eagle first. You humiliated her on this board. Don't you feel any remorse?

low preference guy
07-11-2010, 04:44 PM
You are the one that attacked Liberty Eagle first. You humiliated her on this board. Don't you feel any remorse?

I will answer you after you answer my questions. Don't expect any further reply from me until you do that.

YumYum
07-11-2010, 04:45 PM
I will answer you after you answer my questions. Don't expect any further reply from me until you do that.

And stop messing up threads.

low preference guy
07-11-2010, 04:47 PM
And stop messing up threads.

If you're referring to your Ron Paul supporter neocon thread, I already answered you that you messed up your own thread, so don't blame me for that one.

Fredom101
07-11-2010, 04:47 PM
Because the constitution is an excellent tool to shrink government, and increase liberty.

How in the world can you say this with a straight face?
The constitution has done nothing to shrink government! Government was already growing before the ink was dry, and 200 some odd years later it has become the biggest government in history, yet the congress and president still claim to uphold the constitution.

It's a complete and utter failure, and all the evidence points to this. The constitution being able to restrain government is pure fantasy.

erowe1
07-11-2010, 05:03 PM
The constitution being able to restrain government is pure fantasy.

He didn't say the Constitution was able to restrain government. He said it was a useful tool for those who want to do that.

tremendoustie
07-11-2010, 05:03 PM
How in the world can you say this with a straight face?
The constitution has done nothing to shrink government! Government was already growing before the ink was dry, and 200 some odd years later it has become the biggest government in history, yet the congress and president still claim to uphold the constitution.

It's a complete and utter failure, and all the evidence points to this. The constitution being able to restrain government is pure fantasy.

It's a tool -- it does nothing by itself.

The populace still generally pays lip service to the constitution, so if it can be shown how the current government is violating the constitution, many people will oppose such excesses.

I would base a society on the non-aggression principle. I choose to advocate the non-aggression principle in my own activism -- and I think a central state always invites abuse. But, at this time, the constitution enjoys widespread acceptance among many people who don't understand or accept the NAP. Thus, it is a useful tool to reach those people.

Fox McCloud
07-11-2010, 05:05 PM
I agree with Ron's long-term goals...returning to Constitutionalism is good, in the short term, but still bad in the long term....and well, in in the long run, Ron Paul isn't a Constitutionalist--only in the short run.

tremendoustie
07-11-2010, 05:11 PM
I agree with Ron's long-term goals...returning to Constitutionalism is good, in the short term, but still bad in the long term....and well, in in the long run, Ron Paul isn't a Constitutionalist--only in the short run.

I'd say the constitution is a mid-term goal. For the government to stop invading random countries, blowing up innocent people, running secret prisons, suspending habeus corpus, conducting unwarranted wiretaps, bailing out wall street, taking over industry, manipulating credit, finance, and money, and taking on hundreds of thousands in debt per family in this country, would be a short term goal :p.

Fox McCloud
07-11-2010, 05:12 PM
I'd say the constitution is a mid-term goal. For the government to stop invading random countries, blowing up innocent people, running secret prisons, suspending habeus corpus, conducting unwarranted wiretaps, bailing out wall street, taking over industry, manipulating credit, finance, and money, and taking on hundreds of thousands in debt per family in this country, would be a term goal :p.

fair enough =p

american.swan
07-11-2010, 05:28 PM
Do you agree with Ron Paul that our nation should be restored to its Constitutional order?

Note: This is a redo. Sorry for the inconvenience. I was advised that more than a few were hesitant to vote in it, because the first one was a public poll. This one is private.

What were their reasons, I wonder?

tremendoustie
07-11-2010, 05:55 PM
fair enough =p

Sorry for my nit picking pessimism. :o

I do think we'll get there, it's only a matter of time.

Fredom101
07-11-2010, 06:21 PM
It's a tool -- it does nothing by itself.

The populace still generally pays lip service to the constitution, so if it can be shown how the current government is violating the constitution, many people will oppose such excesses.

I would base a society on the non-aggression principle. I choose to advocate the non-aggression principle in my own activism -- and I think a central state always invites abuse. But, at this time, the constitution enjoys widespread acceptance among many people who don't understand or accept the NAP. Thus, it is a useful tool to reach those people.

Sure, many people will oppose such excesses due to this piece of paper that we were brainwashed into thinking actually restrains government bureaucrats, but like you said, it doesn't work. So why should we keep promoting this document that failed completely?

Can we agree that while the constitution served its purpose years ago, and lip service is still paid to it (giving the illusion of freedom), at this time we need to move on and start over with a truly voluntary system?

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-11-2010, 07:43 PM
Sorry for my nit picking pessimism. :o

I do think we'll get there, it's only a matter of time.

I agree with Rand Paul:
"I personally think that you can not elect enough good people to change the system."

5:00 in this video:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/139763

CCTelander
07-11-2010, 07:45 PM
I agree with Rand Paul:
"I personally think that you can not elect enough good people to change the system."

5:00 in this video:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/139763


I'd go him one further. Even if you could elect enough "good people," they STILL wouldn't be able to change the system.

tremendoustie
07-11-2010, 08:20 PM
Sure, many people will oppose such excesses due to this piece of paper that we were brainwashed into thinking actually restrains government bureaucrats, but like you said, it doesn't work.

If enough people decide government has gotten too big and intrusive, there will be change. That's true whether they come to that conclusion by understanding the principles of liberty, or by studying the constitution.


So why should we keep promoting this document that failed completely?

It's not about promoting the document, it's about promoting liberty, and using people's respect for that document as a means to the end. It's not my personal strategy, in my activism, but it's a valid one. Many people become constitutionalists before they become voluntaryists.



Can we agree that while the constitution served its purpose years ago, and lip service is still paid to it (giving the illusion of freedom) at this time we need to move on and start over with a truly voluntary system?

Certainly a voluntary system would be better. But, the constitution is not what's standing in between us and a voluntary system. The government we have is far, far past either a voluntary system or the constitution, so advocating either will move us closer to liberty than we currently are.

Short term strategies include advocating withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, auditing the fed, ending obama care, or ending the drug war. One mid term strategy would be to advocate reducing the government to constitutional restraints. And, a long term strategy would be to advocate a voluntary society.

There is a place for all these approaches -- we need all three types of goals, just as we need many different kinds of activism, to try to reach these goals.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-11-2010, 08:33 PM
If enough people decide government has gotten too big and intrusive, there will be change.

I sure would like for people to explain how the Titantic or Hindenburg got built without starting small. Why do people think you can change a whole country in one fail swoop?

Most people that achieve success start small and work up. Starting small is not we only have financial support to build 10% of a full scale prototype. Starting small is building 100% of whatever size prototype finances will allow. Starting small is not having 10% of the vote in a large area. Starting small is having 51% of the vote in a smaller area.

tremendoustie
07-11-2010, 08:42 PM
I sure would like for people to explain how the Titantic or Hindenburg got built without starting small. Why do people think you can change a whole country in one fail swoop?

National level politics is still very useful for education, even if the federal government is not reformable.



Most people that achieve success start small and work up. Starting small is not we only have financial support to build 10% of a full scale prototype. Starting small is building 100% of whatever size prototype finances will allow. Starting small is not having 10% of the vote in a large area. Starting small is having 51% of the vote in a smaller area.

I agree with that. That's why I think the free state project, or other efforts to concentrate resources, are great ideas.

Deborah K
07-12-2010, 09:06 AM
Not likely. The issue divides Arizonans quite sharply. There are plenty of mainstream conservatives who are more realistic/pragmatic (though they still aren't correct). You also ought to offer up some evidence for that claim, ya know. ;)

I don't call 70/30 statistics for sb1070 to be a 'sharp division'. Seems most Arizonans want immigration laws enforced.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration

thehunter
07-12-2010, 08:25 PM
I'd go him one further. Even if you could elect enough "good people," they STILL wouldn't be able to change the system.

I think that looking to our politicians to solve the problems, even the big government ones, is in itself THE problem. America has shown that when the grassroots truly stand up in the belief of freedom, that real action will come about. Until that happens though, the clock on the US's mortality keeps ticking...

constituent
07-14-2010, 05:24 PM
But the small government goal post is more realistic than voluntaryism.

Actually, we could have voluntaryism (on the federal level) tomorrow by making participation in the federal system voluntary. :)

That's why principles must come first. The pragmatists always follow. ;)

constituent
07-14-2010, 05:28 PM
Then explain why Ron Paul refers to himself as the champion of the Constitution.

That's what I want to know too!

Voting for increased funding to the Department of Homeland Security for federal immigration enforcement. :confused:

wtf is that?

DanK86
07-14-2010, 06:04 PM
I strongly agree with Ron Paul we need our REPUBLIC back!