tanstaafl
10-31-2007, 11:52 AM
This essay grew out of working to clarify the heart of Ron Paul's message so I could put it across to others who feel they can't support him because he is "Libertarian" (and therefore not somebody a "real" Republican could support) or "Conservative" (and therefore nobody a Democrat could support). I would appreciate feedback, particularly how to further clarify the message so I can more effectively communicate with my fellow citizens.
----
(1) A "Conservative" who conserves nothing - not money and not the Constitution - is, ipso facto, not a conservative; they fail the definition. What are they conserving? Few Republicans of 30 years ago would recognize any of the current crop of Republican leaders as anything remotely resembling Republican.
(2) A building of socialism MUST be built one brick at a time, but the building can be brought down with a single, strategically placed, blow.
To wit: undo the IRS. Good luck rebuilding that institution in our lifetimes - even the poor and middle class despise it and there would never be anywhere near enough popular support to get it re instituted in our lifetimes. With the IRS gone, the Leviathan would be de-Capitated.
For frosting on the cake, eliminate the Fed: The very idea that a cabal of academics beholden to the banks have either the competence or integrity to micro-manage money and interest rates better than a free market is laughably stupid. Only stupid people, corrupt people, or people who have never thought more than three minutes about the implications could possibly favor the Communist monetary system we have.
BECAUSE OF RON PAUL there's NOW an immense amount of press dedicated to assuring us that a strictly limited Republic is a crazy idea; a naive idea; a bad idea; an unfeasible idea. Much of this thought control is accomplished via sleight of mouth tricks of logic and shifting definitions.
But the facts - notably the facts of 1776, 1787 and the hundred years thereafter of US history WITHOUT fiat money and WITHOUT an income tax, tell us that a severely downsized Federal government isn't merely POSSIBLE - it is off the charts BRILLIANT. And any look at a chart of the exponential growth of debt and government since we betrayed our Constitutional foundation should make apparent that THIS ship of socialism is doomed. Do we CHOOSE to sink into the abyss of failed empires on this doomed ship of socialism? Or do we return to our Constitutional mandate of SEVERELY limited government?
What is it we find so shameful, so ridiculous about our Constitution? How did we come to the point where a man of honesty and intelligence is belittled and ridiculed as "radical" for merely suggesting we follow our own Constitution? Why is he called "right wing" or "libertarian" or "quixotic" or "impractical"?
How did we come to this? What the hell were we thinking when we handed in our brains to the man behind the curtain?
(3) The most accurate word for Ron Paul and what he advocates is: Constitution. He is a Constitutionalist, which means an advocate of rule by law instead of rule by whim. Let get it straight: Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate running for President who actually believes in the law and the philosophy upon which this country was founded.
The United States is a virtual entity which exists ONLY by consensus agreement founded upon a contract called the Constitution. If you are opposed to abiding by that contract then you are opposed to the United States. That means whatever it is you are swearing allegience to, it isn't the United States because the United States has no existence outside its definition and its contract.
If you are an enemy of the United States, the real United States, then Ron Paul is your enemy. But if you are not an enemy of the United States, what other choice do you have but to support the only person running who actually supports the contract which defines and legalizes and delineates the INSTITUTION of the United States?
Cut past the nonsense. It is misleading to label Ron Paul a "radical" or "quirky". It is misleading to label him a "Libertarian". It is misleading to label him a "Conservative" (he is not planning on conserving more than 50%, if that, of what currently exists in Washington; the corruption, and bloat, and lawlessness has to go).
What can you most accurately call Ron Paul? An American. A brilliant, principled, conscious, consistent American. If you oppose Ron Paul you really oppose the legal and philosophical foundation of the United States.
Think about that. Think long and hard.
----
(1) A "Conservative" who conserves nothing - not money and not the Constitution - is, ipso facto, not a conservative; they fail the definition. What are they conserving? Few Republicans of 30 years ago would recognize any of the current crop of Republican leaders as anything remotely resembling Republican.
(2) A building of socialism MUST be built one brick at a time, but the building can be brought down with a single, strategically placed, blow.
To wit: undo the IRS. Good luck rebuilding that institution in our lifetimes - even the poor and middle class despise it and there would never be anywhere near enough popular support to get it re instituted in our lifetimes. With the IRS gone, the Leviathan would be de-Capitated.
For frosting on the cake, eliminate the Fed: The very idea that a cabal of academics beholden to the banks have either the competence or integrity to micro-manage money and interest rates better than a free market is laughably stupid. Only stupid people, corrupt people, or people who have never thought more than three minutes about the implications could possibly favor the Communist monetary system we have.
BECAUSE OF RON PAUL there's NOW an immense amount of press dedicated to assuring us that a strictly limited Republic is a crazy idea; a naive idea; a bad idea; an unfeasible idea. Much of this thought control is accomplished via sleight of mouth tricks of logic and shifting definitions.
But the facts - notably the facts of 1776, 1787 and the hundred years thereafter of US history WITHOUT fiat money and WITHOUT an income tax, tell us that a severely downsized Federal government isn't merely POSSIBLE - it is off the charts BRILLIANT. And any look at a chart of the exponential growth of debt and government since we betrayed our Constitutional foundation should make apparent that THIS ship of socialism is doomed. Do we CHOOSE to sink into the abyss of failed empires on this doomed ship of socialism? Or do we return to our Constitutional mandate of SEVERELY limited government?
What is it we find so shameful, so ridiculous about our Constitution? How did we come to the point where a man of honesty and intelligence is belittled and ridiculed as "radical" for merely suggesting we follow our own Constitution? Why is he called "right wing" or "libertarian" or "quixotic" or "impractical"?
How did we come to this? What the hell were we thinking when we handed in our brains to the man behind the curtain?
(3) The most accurate word for Ron Paul and what he advocates is: Constitution. He is a Constitutionalist, which means an advocate of rule by law instead of rule by whim. Let get it straight: Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate running for President who actually believes in the law and the philosophy upon which this country was founded.
The United States is a virtual entity which exists ONLY by consensus agreement founded upon a contract called the Constitution. If you are opposed to abiding by that contract then you are opposed to the United States. That means whatever it is you are swearing allegience to, it isn't the United States because the United States has no existence outside its definition and its contract.
If you are an enemy of the United States, the real United States, then Ron Paul is your enemy. But if you are not an enemy of the United States, what other choice do you have but to support the only person running who actually supports the contract which defines and legalizes and delineates the INSTITUTION of the United States?
Cut past the nonsense. It is misleading to label Ron Paul a "radical" or "quirky". It is misleading to label him a "Libertarian". It is misleading to label him a "Conservative" (he is not planning on conserving more than 50%, if that, of what currently exists in Washington; the corruption, and bloat, and lawlessness has to go).
What can you most accurately call Ron Paul? An American. A brilliant, principled, conscious, consistent American. If you oppose Ron Paul you really oppose the legal and philosophical foundation of the United States.
Think about that. Think long and hard.