A way to unify us with those we oppose

[Deborah K]

Got an idea from another thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276151-Ron-Paul-on-Morning-Joe-1-20-(video)/page4

I'm wondering if we should try to unite as many sites that have opposing views as we can, by finding common ground with them. What if we made a point of spending a few minutes every day spreading the message of unification on issues like the war and the economy?

I'd like to hear your opinions about this, and even if you don't think it's a good idea, please post all the sites you can think of that are currently in opposition to our ideas.

[college4life]

You seem very concerned about the military spending, but the entitlement spending absoluletly dwarfs:collins: the military budget.

The libs will never accept cutting medicare/medicaid/SS.

[PermanentSleep]

Got an idea from another thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276151-Ron-Paul-on-Morning-Joe-1-20-(video)/page4

I'm wondering if we should try to unite as many sites that have opposing views as we can, by finding common ground with them. What if we made a point of spending a few minutes every day spreading the message of unification on issues like the war and the economy?

I'd like to hear your opinions about this, and even if you don't think it's a good idea, please post all the sites you can think of that are currently in opposition to our ideas.

I definitely agree. It's the incessant dividing of us by the media and the political parties that keeps anything important/good from ever getting accomplished. As far as I'm concerned, the war and the economy should be the ONLY things anyone is talking about right now. If those are not fixed then nothing else will ever even have a chance to matter. We either come together on the issues where we agree, building a rock solid coalition, or both sides will most likely lose everything.

[college4life]

Don't we all understand only a small percentage of americans want medicare/medicaid/ss reform? Without reforming these we are just wasting our time IMO.

[amy31416]

Don't we all understand only a small percentage of americans want medicare/medicaid/ss reform? Without reforming these we are just wasting our time IMO.

Yet it would be a massive step forward if we were able to stop the gov't spending on wars--and I'd think that most liberals could at least realize that these programs will inevitably fail if we keep up the "defense" spending.

After the defense spending is cut, it seems that then would be a good time to start discussing making those programs voluntary (which would be an excellent path to phasing them out). Until then, I'd rather we keep spending on those programs to put on more pressure to keep "defense" spending cuts on the table. If those programs are cut, all the revenue that went towards them would go towards more gov't violence, both domestically and abroad, in my opinion.

My top economic priority is to reign in defense/war (on drugs, terrorism, etc) spending. On that, the liberals are more reliable allies, even if we inevitably part ways when (if) that goal is attained.

Constant vigilance, y'know?

[angelatc]

I can and do seek common ground, but I find it very frustrating when those people don't share my conciliatory attitude.

Glen Bradley is a great example. He's an elected official, as conservative as they come, but the people in his local TEA party will happily set aside their fiscal commonalities in order to destroy him on a a single position. (A position that he doesn't even actually hold!)

I don't understand how a guy like John Boehner can glean the instant adoration of the TEA Party when history shows that he's certainly been a part of the big spending problem in the past, but someone like Ron Paul, who has been absolutely right with every political prediction he's made, gets scorned as too liberal because he doesn't want to spend our money.

You're a natural leader Deb - how do you deal with that?

[college4life]

1) I don't think libs are serious about ending the wars. Let's not be naive, where did all those rallies they used to hold go now that Obama is in office?

2) I worry people think we can even come close to solving our fiscal problems through military cuts. We are adding nearly 2 trillion in debt a year, even if we totally eliminated the military we would add well over 1 trillion.

[angelatc]

My top economic priority is to reign in defense/war (on drugs, terrorism, etc) spending. On that, the liberals are more reliable allies, even if we inevitably part ways when (if) that goal is attained.

Constant vigilance, y'know?

They seem to part ways with us (as well as their own party) right after the elections end. :)

[college4life]

Exactly angelatc, you aren't naive which will serve you well in your career.

The libs are by no means serious about the wars. They say it when bush is in office to be edgy and cool.

[PermanentSleep]

My top economic priority is to reign in defense/war (on drugs, terrorism, etc) spending. On that, the liberals are more reliable allies, even if we inevitably part ways when (if) that goal is attained.

Constant vigilance, y'know?

True dat!

[LisaNY]

I think it's a noble idea, but imo these "progressives" need to get their own act together first and decide if they want to stand on principals or just be the cheerleading section for Obama. People like Ralph Nader and Jane Hampsher are clearly open to conversation, but the kos and moveon types are despicable partisan hacks. I think we could have more success converting the neoclowns than dealing with these communists (yes, some of them belong to the communist party usa).

[amy31416]

They seem to part ways with us (as well as their own party) right after the elections end. :)

Well that's certainly true of most liberals.

It dawned on me that I have a subconscious notion that the next president will be Republican and that would get the anti-war left back together...as hypocritical as it may be--I guess I'm at a "by any means necessary" point in ending the war funding.

[college4life]

Exactly Lisa in NY,

We will have a better chance converting those who are naturally fiscally conservative than those who want the state to run every aspect of the economy and their lives.

[Deborah K]

You seem very concerned about the military spending, but the entitlement spending absoluletly dwarfs:collins: the military budget.

The libs will never accept cutting medicare/medicaid/SS.

Finding common ground doesn't mean we have to agree on everything. With the left we can agree on military spending, and with the right we can work on solutions to cut welfare spending.

[JoshLowry]

The libs are by no means serious about the wars. They say it when bush is in office to be edgy and cool.

Collectivize an entire group much?

[Deborah K]

I can and do seek common ground, but I find it very frustrating when those people don't share my conciliatory attitude.

Glen Bradley is a great example. He's an elected official, as conservative as they come, but the people in his local TEA party will happily set aside their fiscal commonalities in order to destroy him on a a single position. (A position that he doesn't even actually hold!)

I don't understand how a guy like John Boehner can glean the instant adoration of the TEA Party when history shows that he's certainly been a part of the big spending problem in the past, but someone like Ron Paul, who has been absolutely right with every political prediction he's made, gets scorned as too liberal because he doesn't want to spend our money.

You're a natural leader Deb - how do you deal with that?

The only example I have, Angel is when I was heavily involved in the Minuteman movement. When we first joined (my husband and I), no one had even heard of Ron Paul. It took us almost 2 years to get the Minuteman movement behind him. We didn't do it alone of course, but once the first match was lit, the rest of the box went off! It is discouraging at times and you never win everyone over, but most clear thinking people will listen to logic and facts. And once they're open to hearing about how Ron has conducted himself personally as well as professionally, most people take it upon themselves to try and learn more.

Right now we're working on one of the Tea Parties in my area. I haven't had a great deal of success yet, but I won't give up.

[Deborah K]

I think it's a noble idea, but imo these "progressives" need to get their own act together first and decide if they want to stand on principals or just be the cheerleading section for Obama. People like Ralph Nader and Jane Hampsher are clearly open to conversation, but the kos and moveon types are despicable partisan hacks. I think we could have more success converting the neoclowns than dealing with these communists (yes, some of them belong to the communist party usa).

I think we should try and make some headway with the ones who show some hope, like Brown and Huffington. Did you happen to catch the video in the thread I linked in the OP? That interview is what gave me the idea to try and unify with those we normally would not. That thread also has a great interview with dr. Paul and Ralph Nadar on the Judge's show. Very inspiring.

[surf]

i'll chime in again as a cheerleader for Deborah K. war - or more precisely anti-war - is where we have a common ground with most of America. if the goal of this movement is to really spark the flame of liberty, this is far and away the best issue we have as far as massive sex-appeal. it's Rosie O'Donnell (Obama, Huck, Romney, etc) vs Jessica Alba (our guy).

if we can win the highest office in the land the other issues that many of you here argue are much more significant can then be addressed. don't belittle the idea that seeking common ground on the war and empire issue can only lead to one thing - and don't dismiss empire spending as insignificant. we all know it's the easiest to cut as well as the most appealing cut to our new recruits....

[LisaNY]

I agree Deborah, there are a few that show some hope and a willingness to come together on certain issues. I think I am just baffled by "progressives" as I have no idea what it is they actually stand for. Are these the same people who protested the Iraq war and the Patriot Act while Bush was president, yet suddenly disappeared once Obama got elected? Are these the people who used to care about mental health issues but now scream "teabagger" whenever someone gets shot? I have no idea who these people really are, so it's hard for me to want to talk to them.

[muzzled dogg]

entitlement spending absoluletly dwarfs:collins: The military budget.



lmao

[amy31416]

I agree Deborah, there are a few that show some hope and a willingness to come together on certain issues. I think I am just baffled by "progressives" as I have no idea what it is they actually stand for. Are these the same people who protested the Iraq war and the Patriot Act while Bush was president, yet suddenly disappeared once Obama got elected? Are these the people who used to care about mental health issues but now scream "teabagger" whenever someone gets shot? I have no idea who these people really are, so it's hard for me to want to talk to them.

I don't think everyone is cut out to try to work with progressives, liberals or neocons. For instance, the pro-war, pro-death, pro-corporatism stances of neoconservatives really pisses me off--along with the fact that they almost entirely destroyed the GOP and real conservatism. So personally, I'd avoid them and just try to remain civil.

Liberals piss me off on specific issues--like gun control, welfare, taxes and their illogical, outrageous belief that the gov't is benevolent enough to be trusted with even more money. All of those things really and truly do irritate the hell out of me, but I find it easier to deal with them since my primary goal, economically, is to end funding for wars. And they're often on the same page, even if some have big, shiny Obama blinders on right now.

Maybe you would find it easier to find common ground with neocons...there's nothing wrong with that, even if it does involve putting on some blinders to deal with either group civilly. If you haven't noticed, many of us libertarian-types like to argue something ad nauseum, which isn't appropriate for this sort of effort, and often does more harm than good.

[Deborah K]

I agree Deborah, there are a few that show some hope and a willingness to come together on certain issues. I think I am just baffled by "progressives" as I have no idea what it is they actually stand for. Are these the same people who protested the Iraq war and the Patriot Act while Bush was president, yet suddenly disappeared once Obama got elected? Are these the people who used to care about mental health issues but now scream "teabagger" whenever someone gets shot? I have no idea who these people really are, so it's hard for me to want to talk to them.

The way I see it Lisa, is that people generally fall into one of two lines of thinking - they either think like an individualist or like a collectivist. The ones who were vocal about the war when Bush was Prez and are now silent, are clearly party-line people and therefore collectivists. Socialists and Communists fall into the collectivist line of thinking as well, and I'm not sure we can pull those types out of their misguided belief system. But if we can unify with the folks who realize that the war is not only immoral but impractical economically, and that the economy - in every aspect - affects them personally, we might make some headway.

[Acala]

Exactly Lisa in NY,

We will have a better chance converting those who are naturally fiscally conservative than those who want the state to run every aspect of the economy and their lives.

When push comes to shove I find that the average Republican is about as fiscally conservative as the average Democrat is anti-war - meaning not very much. And the average Republican is as fiercely dedicated to the unsustainable world empire as the average Democrat is to the unsustainable social welfare state.

And contrary to what you seem to be implying, college4life, we can't survive unless BOTH the world empire AND the welfare state come to a halt right now.

But in support of the OP, I think it is important to be able to find common ground with people AND use their own views to help them rethink their assumptions.

For example, the recent shooting is big news here in Tucson, as one might expect. When I have been asked for my opinion by people taking a "more gun control" view, I point out how the politicians that are weeping and crying about these deaths are the SAME politicians that are supporting the torture, starvation, and murder of men, women, and children all over the Middle East. And if that isn't enough, I can bring in the tragedy the drug war is creating in Mexico. That instantly changes the dynamic and makes it almost impossible for them to bring the conversation back to gun control because the politicians who are advocating it have just been exposed as foul hypocrites. While they are still reeling from being blindsided I am in a position to point out how violence is a problem rooted in the wretched condition of human consciousness, not in the availability of certain hardware, and ALL violence needs to be addressed by changing human culture, not by enacting more laws that will then need to be enforced by men with guns acting violently.

I WIN that argument without even fighting. Every damn time. It's a blast to watch people who thought they were aligning themselves with the side of peace suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the issue by their own standards. I can oppose gun control and be MORE peaceful than any of them. Of course most of them just blank out what happened. But some of them end up doing some thinking for themselves.

[outspoken]

The way I see it Lisa, is that people generally fall into one of two lines of thinking - they either think like an individualist or like a collectivist. The ones who were vocal about the war when Bush was Prez and are now silent, are clearly party-line people and therefore collectivists. Socialists and Communists fall into the collectivist line of thinking as well, and I'm not sure we can pull those types out of their misguided belief system. But if we can unify with the folks who realize that the war is not only immoral but impractical economically, and that the economy - in every aspect - affects them personally, we might make some headway.

It is fine to think as a collectivist...... as long as your means of working together DOES NOT involve government. Government is absolute power and corrupts all human beings. The fact is that we are all in this together but we must recognize what government is and should fear it. I believe in the Golden Rule and we need to help one another but it shouldn't be mandated and stolen by a higher authority.

That said, the boomers who created this problem with entitlements don't want to own it but rather pass the buck to the next generation. We are going to see some serious generational conflicts in the next election as the younger generation wakes up to the mess that was given to them. The Boomers were hoping to ride off into the sunset via retirement but the fact is the funds just are not there..... I wish it were so but it is what it is and we have to unite as one nation; one nation addicted to BIG GOV'T that we can't afford.

[Tinnuhana]

At least some of the anti-war people who supported Obama in the last election are quiet because of embarassment. They were "had." Also, in the waning months of RP's 2008 campaign, the original C4L site was bombarded with "sheep stealing" trolls saying we should all vote for Obama since at least he'd get us out of the wars. So I wonder how many of those people (trolls and trollees) are back now and eyes-opened ready for Ron Paul 2012?

[Acala]

That said, the boomers who created this problem with entitlements don't want to own it but rather pass the buck to the next generation. We are going to see some serious generational conflicts in the next election as the younger generation wakes up to the mess that was given to them. The Boomers were hoping to ride off into the sunset via retirement but the fact is the funds just are not there..... I wish it were so but it is what it is and we have to unite as one nation; one nation addicted to BIG GOV'T that we can't afford.

Excuse me, but as a boomer I should point out that Social Security, the mother of all entitlements, was enacted before I was born, and Medicare, the obese daughter of Social Security, was enacted when I was 8. It was the arrogantly self-titled "greatest generation" that gave us the budget-busting Federal entitlements. Mine is the generation that will turn out to be the one that paid in the most and gets the least.

[Deborah K]

It is fine to think as a collectivist...... as long as your means of working together DOES NOT involve government. Government is absolute power and corrupts all human beings. The fact is that we are all in this together but we must recognize what government is and should fear it. I believe in the Golden Rule and we need to help one another but it shouldn't be mandated and stolen by a higher authority.

That said, the boomers who created this problem with entitlements don't want to own it but rather pass the buck to the next generation. We are going to see some serious generational conflicts in the next election as the younger generation wakes up to the mess that was given to them. The Boomers were hoping to ride off into the sunset via retirement but the fact is the funds just are not there..... I wish it were so but it is what it is and we have to unite as one nation; one nation addicted to BIG GOV'T that we can't afford.

There is a distinct difference between individuals forming groups with other individuals they happen to agree with, and collectivism. Collectivists view the group as an entity of its own with rights of its own. Therefore, it is acceptable to sacrifice individuals if necessary - the greatest good for the greatest number. But, this begs the question: who gets to choose who will be sacrificed for the greater good? The government does, of course, because the government is the ultimate group. The government is more important than the individual. Collectivists believe that rights come from governments.

As to your comment about the boomers. It was during FDR's reign that entitlements were established and the boomers weren't born until after WWII. They were babies, so it's ridiculous to blame the boomers, whose paychecks have been pilfered their entire lives, for wanting their money back!

If you're going to blame someone, blame the unions and their government sanctioned unfunded pensions!

[Deborah K]

bump for adversary web sites to contact

[JoshLowry]

I tried starting www.slaveuprising.com about two years ago.


This site is a dedication to all of those who have had enough, enough with forced taxation imposed to fund the destruction of the very liberties our government claims to protect, enough of big-government collusion with private businesses and the banking cartels that would seek to control our future and enough with the usurpation of the sovereignty every man and woman claims over their own being.

SlaveUprising.com welcomes members to use all tools available to wake up those who are bound to slavery, but do not realize it yet. We endorse no individual action or project that may arise by use of these tools. In respect for the freedom of the individual, SlaveUprising.com remains neutral though supportive in regard to all a manner of non-violent resistance.

We offer a place that deserves neither credit nor blame. It is a space for you to unite and share your individual ideas so that they may blossom in the fight for freedom.

It was supposed to be non-partisan and find common ground.

I think I went way too dark for a theme and name so it kept many away.


"We agree that we have now become servants to the income tax, death tax, and other taxes that the government has imposed on us in order to sustain big government. Illegal taxation in support of our out-of-control government must end.

We agree that we have now become servants to the private and illegal banking cartel called the Federal Reserve that controls our money supply. This cartel is unconstitutional and therefore criminal. It must be abolished.

We agree that we have now become servants to those in the government that would spend taxpayer dollars to bail out private banks and financial institutions. These banks should be allowed to fail, as it is unconstitutional for the government to get involved.

We agree that we have now become servants to those that would violate our civil liberties, rights, and freedoms such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution must be restored in its entirety.

We agree that we have now become servants to those politicians who give our tax dollars away via "foreign aid". The USA is in massive debt and not a penny should be spent on other nations, and all politicians refusing to uphold their oath of office need to be removed."

I could redesign the site to have a much lighter look and change the domain.

[BenIsForRon]

Deborah, as you know, I totally agree with you. I would just say that liberals are not "those we oppose", they are more friends that with significantly different philosophies.

We both care about peace and improving the standard of living in the country, which is what matters most.

Honestly, I find liberals have a better grasp on some serious issues than most libertarians. For example, I've met more liberals who know who Joel Salatin is than libertarians who do, when Joel Salatin should be a libertarian hero! When it comes to environment and food security, liberals simply are more aware of the problems we have going on.

So yeah, I would even abandon the notion that we are allying with lesser political minds, we are actually allying with people who will help us improve the country more than if we were running it alone!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Deborah, as you know, I totally agree with you. I would just say that liberals are not "those we oppose", they are more friends that with significantly different philosophies.

We both care about peace and improving the standard of living in the country, which is what matters most.

Honestly, I find liberals have a better grasp on some serious issues than most libertarians. For example, I've met more liberals who know who Joel Salatin is than libertarians who do, when Joel Salatin should be a libertarian hero! When it comes to environment and food security, liberals simply are more aware of the problems we have going on.

So yeah, I would even abandon the notion that we are allying with lesser political minds, we are actually allying with people who will help us improve the country more than if we were running it alone!

To be honest, I do not see liberals caring much about peace when they want heavily armed agents arresting, detaining, incarcerating, and killing innocent and peaceful people. In fact, when I bring up that we should abolish Standing Armies they reflexively defend the status-quo. Of course, if you mean liberal in its literal context (E.g. Garet Garret or Ludwig von Mises), then yes we are very much brethren. It takes more than just wanting us out of Iraq for me to consider you peaceful. Frankly, I can't see how people can sit there with a straight face and call themselves peaceful when advocating for all those things (Increase in IRS agents, FBI, BATFE, Local Enforcement, more Government power - violence, etc.). Perhaps my lenses are attuned to the truth far more than theirs, but if they truly want peace then I would agree that it would be much easier persuading them to adapt an actual peace philosophy. I mean, how many liberals even know about the America First Committee, Old Rightists, and the long tradition of Classical Liberal / Libertarian peace advocacy? Richard Cobden Mr. Peace himself? No, I guess not.

Liberals have no clue when it comes to the environment. I think Walter Block and every other Free-Market Propertarian environmentalist is imminently superior to any liberal on this issue. Liberals cannot even concede that the number one polluter is the Government itself!

Why should we ally with anyone? Since when does working with people who agree on certain issues denote an alliance? If that is the case, since libertarians partially have agreements with pretty much all philosophies except total statists, would you really say that we should ally with everyone? How is that going to work? Working with individuals to improve liberty on issues that they align with liberty is much easier. If you want to see want an alliance is like look at the Alliance of the Libertarian Left. Even that is pretty heated at times and we agree and have in common a bazillion times more than libertarians do with liberals.

[erowe1]

Why should we ally with anyone?

If we think that working towards a reduction of the state within its own political system (and I realize this is a big if, and not one that I simply take for granted, but still something that this site exists for), then we should be willing to build coalitions. If we want Ron Paul to win the presidency, or even the GOP nomination, or even to break double digits in most state primaries, then we need to be able to win over supporters from among those who are close to him on some issues while disagreeing on others.

I think, more importantly than trying to do this in online forums is trying to do it in flesh and blood. We could gain a great deal by having as many of us as possible make a point to be actively involved in local tea party and 912 groups, and in our county GOPs to seek out the paleocons, for example.

[Travlyr]

It is fine to think as a collectivist...... as long as your means of working together DOES NOT involve government. Government is absolute power and corrupts all human beings. The fact is that we are all in this together but we must recognize what government is and should fear it. I believe in the Golden Rule and we need to help one another but it shouldn't be mandated and stolen by a higher authority.

That said, the boomers who created this problem with entitlements don't want to own it but rather pass the buck to the next generation. We are going to see some serious generational conflicts in the next election as the younger generation wakes up to the mess that was given to them. The Boomers were hoping to ride off into the sunset via retirement but the fact is the funds just are not there..... I wish it were so but it is what it is and we have to unite as one nation; one nation addicted to BIG GOV'T that we can't afford.

The Boomers did not create big government, and they are not your enemy. Swim deeper in true history to find the real culprits.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If we think that working towards a reduction of the state within its own political system (and I realize this is a big if, and not one that I simply take for granted, but still something that this site exists for), then we should be willing to build coalitions. If we want Ron Paul to win the presidency, or even the GOP nomination, or even to break double digits in most state primaries, then we need to be able to win over supporters from among those who are close to him on some issues while disagreeing on others.

I think, more importantly than trying to do this in online forums is trying to do it in flesh and blood. We could gain a great deal by having as many of us as possible make a point to be actively involved in local tea party and 912 groups, and in our county GOPs to seek out the paleocons, for example.

But an alliance is a completely different thing than working with people who agree with us on individual issues. We can work to reduce the State without an alliance. I think an alliance will be hugely destructive of our ends. For example, look at the faux Tea Party caucus in the House and personally, just as much in the Senate. Do you think it is a good thing Ron Paul stayed independent and works with individuals on individual issues? I don't need to be in an alliance with anyone to work with liberals for instance on ending the wars, or with conservatives on repealing Obamacare. As a libertarian I have agreements with all political philosophies in one case or another, except for total statists. How in the hell can I ally with everyone? Nothing would get done, but a bunch of inter-bickering. I think we have enough of that within the libertarian movement, and I am certainly not above that standard. :p

I think defining our terms and concepts is important. When I say I am against alliances, it does not mean I am against working with individuals on individual issues.

Just to give a few real life examples. I have been to, and tried to work with liberal groups in my area like Drinking Liberally, and having fun intellectual conversations. Similarly, I've been to quite a few anti-war demonstrations with the crowds being pretty evenly half libertarian half liberal. I have also been to many Tea Parties and tried to work on common grounds and educate on differences. I do not need an alliance to do any of these things, and personally having an alliance would hinder my ability. It creates group dynamics which are destructive. If we ally ourselves with liberals, or progressives, how much of in-fighting do you think is going to happen when we work with conservatives on issues? Vice-versa also. Just look at Adam Kokesh. How can we have an alliance with anyone else when we have issues where we agree with people across the political spectrum? People just do not understand individual liberty, peace, and free-markets. I have to shrug my head everytime some conservative or liberal attacks Adam. Libertarianism is not conducive to alliances period.

[BenIsForRon]

I think an alliance will be hugely destructive of our ends.

What planet do you live on? You act like like the best thing we can do for world peace is to move to fucking New Hampshire.

First of all, Ron Paul is member of multiple caucuses in the house, so that little argument goes out the window. I'm sure he'll be in the Tea Party caucus if it comes to the house.


I mean, how many liberals even know about the America First Committee, Old Rightists, and the long tradition of Classical Liberal / Libertarian peace advocacy? Richard Cobden Mr. Peace himself?

Dude, I have no idea what/who the fuck you're talking about. That doesn't make me any less anti-war.

I think you just have such a deep hatred for liberals that you will say anything to get us to stop thinking about a coalition. Just give up, you sound silly.

[college4life]

BenisforRon, please don't namecall. Your grasp of finance is so tenuous many of us could perpetually mock you.

AED is right, liberals are clueless. They love the state, but are supposedly anti war? It's a joke. How can there be wars without a state?

[Travlyr]

How can there be wars without a state?

Thieves are warmongers with or without state backing. Hiding behind a state simply makes them look like they care when they steal and kill.

[BenIsForRon]

BenisforRon, please don't namecall. Your grasp of finance is so tenuous many of us could perpetually mock you.

How is my grasp of finance tenuous?


AED is right, liberals are clueless. They love the state, but are supposedly anti war? It's a joke. How can there be wars without a state?

Have you seen somalia? They're called warlords.

[pcosmar]

I do not want to be unified with Communists/Socialists.
I do not wish to be united with UN/Globalists
I have no desire to become united with Corporatists..

I want to see them defeated and outlawed and shunned.
I wish the very concepts be forgotten, or at best become stories to scare children.

but I seldom get what I want.
:(

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What planet do you live on? You act like like the best thing we can do for world peace is to move to fucking New Hampshire.

First of all, Ron Paul is member of multiple caucuses in the house, so that little argument goes out the window. I'm sure he'll be in the Tea Party caucus if it comes to the house.



Dude, I have no idea what/who the fuck you're talking about. That doesn't make me any less anti-war.

I think you just have such a deep hatred for liberals that you will say anything to get us to stop thinking about a coalition. Just give up, you sound silly.

Libertarians literally have very little to nothing in common with liberals when it comes to economics, and there are many areas where we vehemently disagree on civil liberties. Similarly, libertarians have little to nothing in common with conservatives when it comes to civil liberties and foreign policy. Libertarians agree with both conservatives and liberals on seperate issues. Why is an alliance with liberals any better than an alliance with conservatives? My position is that an alliance is destructive because if libertarians ally with liberals then it puts our economic and gun stances (plus many many more like Obamacare) in jeopardy because when we focus on those efforts any alliance will become way too tenuous. Similarly, with Conservatives. Therefore the only practical position is to ally with neither, and work with both on those individual issues where we agree. What is the point of an alliance if we work with Conservatives as much as we work with Liberals? In that case why not ally with everyone except the die hard statists? Such an alliance at that point is incredibly strained and tenuous and would never work out. Like I said, for those who are not libertarians (like yourself) you have no understanding how even an inter-libertarian alliance is quite tenuous at times!

And, as I must point out the reason I brought up AFC, Old Rightists, and Mr. Cobden is to illustrate just become libertarians (some), or myself have no clue who Joel Salatin is, doesn't mean that liberals have a better understanding of an issue because they do. How much more superficial can you get? Then you have the audacity to say because you don't know the aforementioned it doesn't make you any less anti-war, and then call us libertarians less knowledgable because we do not know who Joel Salatin (Who the fuck?) is...Need I say more?

Now, if you could point out where I said that libertarians should not work with those who we agree with on individual issues? If that is the case then I would have disavowed Adam Kokesh, Ron Paul, and Murray Rothbard. That would be fucking lunacy. Libertarians have tried the alliance deals in the past in the 50s with Conservatives and in the 60s with Liberals, and neither worked and both were to the detriment to the libertarian positions where we didn't agree upon and was the reason the alliance fractured in the first place (Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties with Conservatives and Economics & Civil Liberties with Liberals). Besides, as libertarians we are building a large enough movement where there is no need for us to join non-libertarian groups like Rothbard and Liggio did in the 60s when they joined SDS. We have YAL and SFL.

PS: I have no hatred of liberals. I have worked with many on many issues where we see eye to eye, just like I do with conservatives. With that said, I do dislike Liberals as much as I do Conservatives. If I had my druthers I would wish to see both philosophies relegated to the dustbin forever.

[BenIsForRon]

And, as I must point out the reason I brought up AFC, Old Rightists, and Mr. Cobden is to illustrate just become libertarians (some), or myself have no clue who Joel Salatin is, doesn't mean that liberals have a better understanding of an issue because they do. How much more superficial can you get? Then you have the audacity to say because you don't know the aforementioned it doesn't make you any less anti-war, and then call us libertarians less knowledgable because we do not know who Joel Salatin (Who the fuck?) is...Need I say more?

The difference between our examples is that Joel Salatin is a libertarian, and more liberals know who he is. He wrote a book called "Everything I do is Illegal", at this point every serious libertarian should know who he is, given the current state of the agriculture industry and it's puppet, the USDA.

As far as the rest of your post, what I'm saying is that we need to become a unified political force, in order to raise funds and promote candidates to the national scene, then once we've taken care of the most important matters (war, civil liberties, corporate welfare), then we can split and deal with the issues we disagree on. In other words, working together on individual issues is impossible right now, because we have no representation.

[Deborah K]

Deborah, as you know, I totally agree with you. I would just say that liberals are not "those we oppose", they are more friends that with significantly different philosophies.

We both care about peace and improving the standard of living in the country, which is what matters most.

Honestly, I find liberals have a better grasp on some serious issues than most libertarians. For example, I've met more liberals who know who Joel Salatin is than libertarians who do, when Joel Salatin should be a libertarian hero! When it comes to environment and food security, liberals simply are more aware of the problems we have going on.

So yeah, I would even abandon the notion that we are allying with lesser political minds, we are actually allying with people who will help us improve the country more than if we were running it alone!

I wouldn't go so far as to call someone who's political views I oppose as having "lesser political minds". I would say that my own political opposition would be those who believe in socialism, communism, etc. I wouldn't categorize all liberals that way.

[Deborah K]

Why should we ally with anyone? Since when does working with people who agree on certain issues denote an alliance? If that is the case, since libertarians partially have agreements with pretty much all philosophies except total statists, would you really say that we should ally with everyone? How is that going to work? Working with individuals to improve liberty on issues that they align with liberty is much easier. If you want to see want an alliance is like look at the Alliance of the Libertarian Left. Even that is pretty heated at times and we agree and have in common a bazillion times more than libertarians do with liberals.

The idea is to find common ground with those we oppose politically. The way I see it, two drastically different views on how this nation should be governed are being fought on the battlefield of ideas: individual freedom versus total government control. It is the war of individualism versus collectivism. Collectivism has been intentionally and systematically infused into the American psyche for nearly one hundred years through political sway in the media and the educational system in this country. Collectivism, by its very nature, is designed to create division among people - which group deserves more - etc. No one has escaped its influence and the time has come for all of us to deprogram.

One way to do that is to reach out and find common ground with as many people as we can. A lot of people might find that they agree with us if we do a good job explaining ourselves, have patience, and don't attack.

[Deborah K]

If we think that working towards a reduction of the state within its own political system (and I realize this is a big if, and not one that I simply take for granted, but still something that this site exists for), then we should be willing to build coalitions. If we want Ron Paul to win the presidency, or even the GOP nomination, or even to break double digits in most state primaries, then we need to be able to win over supporters from among those who are close to him on some issues while disagreeing on others.

I think, more importantly than trying to do this in online forums is trying to do it in flesh and blood. We could gain a great deal by having as many of us as possible make a point to be actively involved in local tea party and 912 groups, and in our county GOPs to seek out the paleocons, for example.

Well put! +rep

[Deborah K]

I do not want to be unified with Communists/Socialists.
I do not wish to be united with UN/Globalists
I have no desire to become united with Corporatists..

I want to see them defeated and outlawed and shunned.
I wish the very concepts be forgotten, or at best become stories to scare children.

but I seldom get what I want.
:(

Let me clarify. I'm not talking about unifying with the enemy. I'm not talking about unifying with EVERYONE!! I'm talking about making an effort to find common ground with those we generally oppose. In the case of the interview that inspired this thread, I have always found it amazing that Ron can have conversations, and even work with people he generally disagrees with politically, for example: Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, and so on.

[Deborah K]

I respect the need for some people to argue and debate this issue, but could I have some web sites and blogs, and forums that would be considered the opposition? I don't tread in those areas so I am ignorant of any information about them. I know a lot of people here monitor opposing sites. Would you mind listing the ones we might make some headway on? I intend to start trying to reach out to some of them as part of my activism.

[RyanRSheets]

Got an idea from another thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276151-Ron-Paul-on-Morning-Joe-1-20-(video)/page4

I'm wondering if we should try to unite as many sites that have opposing views as we can, by finding common ground with them. What if we made a point of spending a few minutes every day spreading the message of unification on issues like the war and the economy?

I'd like to hear your opinions about this, and even if you don't think it's a good idea, please post all the sites you can think of that are currently in opposition to our ideas.

I agree 100%, and most of my activism has been tuned toward working with the enemy. I have particularly used Facebook. Find someone who gets a lot of feedback, and you can convert a lot of their followers.

[Deborah K]

I agree 100%, and most of my activism has been tuned toward working with the enemy. I have particularly used Facebook. Find someone who gets a lot of feedback, and you can convert a lot of their followers.

Thanks, good idea!

[RyanRSheets]

I do not want to be unified with Communists/Socialists.
I do not wish to be united with UN/Globalists
I have no desire to become united with Corporatists..

I want to see them defeated and outlawed and shunned.
I wish the very concepts be forgotten, or at best become stories to scare children.

but I seldom get what I want.
:(

It isn't like that. It's about approaching the enemy, figuring out what you agree on and using that. Those small agreements are your door to their minds, your chance to make them right. Use what you have in common to become their friend. Make them trust you. Build a friendly disagreement.

Then, more importantly, it is about converting the enemy. Start pointing out their inconsistencies. Don't attack them, but give your opinion. Don't make it a constant, annoying thing, but do make it a point to engage them often. I have found that there are the hopelessly convinced, but more prominently, there are those who have bought into a lie and are willing to accept that they have been wrong. They might be stubborn, but eventually, the truth will prevail, as long as you keep telling them the truth. Don't expect them to come out and admit you were right, just press the issues and have faith that eventually you will cause some change.

[Deborah K]

I tried starting www.slaveuprising.com about two years ago.



It was supposed to be non-partisan and find common ground.

I think I went way too dark for a theme and name so it kept many away.



I could redesign the site to have a much lighter look and change the domain.




Josh I remember that site! I joined, and I even donated to get it up and running. ;) Maybe switching it up a little will spark some new interest.

[Deborah K]

Still requesting web sites......

[outspoken]

I should clarify that no one generation is totally responsible for the mess we are but the mess we are in will cause each generation to point fingers at one another. The life expectancy has gone up 20 years since SS was enacted and there has been virtually no adjustments to account for this... the political game is about passing the buck, kicking the financial can down the road. It appears that human nature only responds/adjusts to major suffering and that is very unfortunately for all of us. The writing is on the wall and the fortitude is just not there amongst citizens for all of us to suck it up and really do what needs to be done. Everyone is hellbent on preserving their govt job, entitlement, tax write off, etc. To right this ship everyone will have to hurt a little... starting with the people most dependent on government. jmho

[pcosmar]

I should clarify that no one generation is totally responsible for the mess we are but the mess we are in will cause each generation to point fingers at one another. The life expectancy has gone up 20 years since SS was enacted and there has been virtually no adjustments to account for this... the political game is about passing the buck, kicking the financial can down the road. It appears that human nature only responds/adjusts to major suffering and that is very unfortunately for all of us. The writing is on the wall and the fortitude is just not there amongst citizens for all of us to suck it up and really do what needs to be done. Everyone is hellbent on preserving their govt job, entitlement, tax write off, etc. To right this ship everyone will have to hurt a little... starting with the people most dependent on government. jmho

The bold is not even true.
SS retirement age has been increased a couple times. And there has been talk of raising it again.
When it was proposed and first passed, you were not supposed to live long enough to collect. That was the beauty of the scam.

[outspoken]

http://www.prb.org/pdf06/nia_futureoflifeexpectancy.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

My point is that while it has been amended multiple times there has been little if any attempts to really do the necessary actuary adjustments to make SS balanced and aligned with the changes in life expectancy. It was initially passed as you said as a scam/pyramid scheme which most people weren't even supposed to collect on but made them feel safe/fuzzy in the event they outlived their savings. Now we have a time bomb on our hands and a have a large group of people who believe they are entitled to retire, have saved little to nothing, and are banking on SS as the means by which they will live out their golden years.... on the backs of the next generation. Granted they did pay into the system but the system was never adequately set up and especially did not adequately adjust for increased life expectancy in the U.S.