Is Bernie Sanders's message more popular than Ron Paul's?

[Son_of_Liberty90]

I hate to admit it, but as much as I was hopeful in 2012 for a breakthrough for Ron based on the great campaign ads and grassroots support, it seems like Bernie Sanders's message is gaining more traction by democratic and independent voters. Is it because of the "FREE STUFF" message he's espousing?

Why was it than Ron was considered "crazy" for his extreme views on role of government but socialist Bernie is being embraced like wildfire?

Put it another way: how many Ron Paul supporters do you think support Bernie Sanders today, and how many people who were against Ron Paul/support Bernie Sanders?

Especially young voters. I saw a disturbing newscast that interviewed students supporting Bernie Sanders, and one student said, "Bernie Sanders was not a successful candidate before because he didn't have a generation like us."

*Shudders*

[squarepusher]

Bernie could loosely be considered the "left's Ron Paul," only he is doing much better and actually has a good chance of getting elected.

[presence]

Bernie could loosely be considered the "left's Ron Paul," only he is doing much better and actually has a good chance of getting elected.

I'm not seeing that

http://i.imgur.com/q2Dct9n.png

[Anti Federalist]

Is Bernie Sanders's message more popular than Ron Paul's?

Of course it is.

It's some of the freedom, with all sorts of "free" stuff to go along with it.

[idiom]

Bernie is getting huge traction because of a lack of options.

Imagine if the entire 2008 race had been Ron Paul vs McCain, or 2012 was Ron Paul vs Romney.

Bernie is the *only* non-Hillary option.

A lot of his supporters don't know or dis-like his policies, but they hate Hillary more.

Nobody who supports him actually wants to get rid of NASA etc, they just really really hate Hillary and would take anyone.

[juleswin]

Bernie is getting huge traction because of a lack of options.

Imagine if the entire 2008 race had been Ron Paul vs McCain, or 2012 was Ron Paul vs Romney.

Bernie is the *only* non-Hillary option.

A lot of his supporters don't know or dis-like his policies, but they hate Hillary more.

Nobody who supports him actually wants to get rid of NASA etc, they just really really hate Hillary and would take anyone.

Yep, essentially he alone is the anti Romney for the dems.

[Kotin]

we have a completely uniformed and misinformed public so why be surprised by this?

[Dianne]

Bernie could loosely be considered the "left's Ron Paul," only he is doing much better and actually has a good chance of getting elected.

Actually Ron Paul did great, but no news media outlet would cover his success. The only reason they are now covering Sanders, is because people are so damn pissed off with the media, and watching everything they do and say. It wasn't like that in 2007 and 2012. Ron Paul was a pioneer in exposing the corrupt news media, but too late for him. Sanders now has the benefit.

[TheTexan]

One promised to take away your free stuff, the other promised to give you more free stuff.

Easy choice

[unknown]

Ron Paul was never "considered" crazy.

He was constantly name called and personally attacked by the establishment and their minions in the media because they could never successfully challenge him on his ideals and principles.

Of-course Sanders' message is more popular than Ron Paul's.

Ron Paul wanted to get government out of our lives and do away with the IRS (among other things).

Sanders wants more government, taking more of your money in order to give you more "free" shit.

Of-course thats going to resonate more, especially with the OWS well intentioned but completely misguided shitheads.

[idiom]

If there were six governors running against Hillary + Sanders nobody would know who the fuck he was. He has got nothing on Ron. Intellectually he is weak sauce, his record is a shambles.

Unlike the GOP, the Dems *LOVE* to upset the DNC apple cart for shits and giggles, that is how Obama got nominated.

[misterx]

Without a doubt! People love free stuff.

[ShaneEnochs]

Bernie is getting huge traction because of a lack of options.

Imagine if the entire 2008 race had been Ron Paul vs McCain, or 2012 was Ron Paul vs Romney.

Bernie is the *only* non-Hillary option.

A lot of his supporters don't know or dis-like his policies, but they hate Hillary more.

Nobody who supports him actually wants to get rid of NASA etc, they just really really hate Hillary and would take anyone.

Not sure where you're getting this, but as a Bernie supporter myself (and former RP supporter), I've never heard or met anyone who supports him while disliking his policies. His rallies have tens of thousands of very passionate supporters who know very well what his stances and policies are.

Also, Bernie has never said anything about getting rid of NASA. He just doesn't see it as a priority, which is one of the two stances I disagree with him on. The other is nuclear energy.

[idiom]

Not sure where you're getting this, but as a Bernie supporter myself (and former RP supporter), I've never heard or met anyone who supports him while disliking his policies. His rallies have tens of thousands of very passionate supporters who know very well what his stances and policies are.

Also, Bernie has never said anything about getting rid of NASA. He just doesn't see it as a priority, which is one of the two stances I disagree with him on. The other is nuclear energy.

He has voted repeatedly to defund NASA. He defended it in the Reddit AMA even.

But the reason anybody cares is the lack of options.

[ShaneEnochs]

He has voted repeatedly to defund NASA. He defended it in the Reddit AMA even.

But the reason anybody cares is the lack of options.

Context is important. This is what he actually said:


I am supportive of NASA not only because of the excitement of space exploration, but because of all the additional side benefits we receive from research in that area. Sometimes, and frankly I don't remember all of those votes, one is put in a position of having to make very very difficult choices about whether you vote to provide food for hungry kids or health care for people who have none and other programs. But, in general, I do support increasing funding for NASA.

Which can be read as "I support NASA, but there are bigger priorities."

Like I said, it's not something I agree with, but it's rare to agree 100% with anyone.

[idiom]

Between advancing the ability to produce for all humanity, and giving out free food the man picks free food.

There is almost nothing commendable to him except he is the least bad option.

Its also fun and exciting to support someone who could win and knock Hillary out.

[ShaneEnochs]

There is almost nothing commendable to him except he is the least bad option.

That's it? You're not interested in getting huge amounts of private money (read: bribes) out of politics? Even right-wing folks should be able to get behind that.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It's certainly a lot easier to convey the premise that "you, person in the audience deserve free stuff" over explaining spontaneous order to the miseducated and uninformed masses.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFeGNX06Zmk

[ShaneEnochs]

It's certainly a lot easier to convey the premise that "you mister person in the audience deserve free stuff" over explaining spontaneous order to the miseducated and uninformed masses.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFeGNX06Zmk

I pay roughly $33,000/year in taxes between Federal, State, Medicare, and Social Security. Know what I get out of it? Some crumbling infrastructure. Know what I'd like to get out of it? Free college and healthcare would be a nice start.

[The Gold Standard]

That's it? You're not interested in getting huge amounts of private money (read: bribes) out of politics? Even right-wing folks should be able to get behind that.

I've heard this bullshit before. How is he going to get private money and bribes out of politics? Politicians are banned from working in the private sector after their terms? No more speaking fees? Politicians don't give a fuck who funds their campaigns, they can't keep that money anyway. It's the money they get to keep that Bernie won't stop, can't stop, and doesn't want to stop, because the only way to stop it is for the government not to have the power to grant favors or interfere in the economy. Bernie wants the government to control the economy, so there will just be more bribes.

[The Gold Standard]

I pay roughly $33,000/year in taxes between Federal, State, Medicare, and Social Security. Know what I get out of it? Some crumbling infrastructure. Know what I'd like to get out of it? Free college and healthcare would be a nice start.

You know what I would like to get out of it? My money back. How the fuck did you ever support Ron Paul? Bernie Sanders is the anti-Ron Paul.

[ShaneEnochs]

You know what I would like to get out of it? My money back. How the fuck did you ever support Ron Paul? Bernie Sanders is the anti-Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's economic message wasn't what resonated with me. He brought in a lot of people from a lot of places.

[Working Poor]

Bernie doewsn't have the media saying he is unelectable every time he is on the news like Ron did.

[Working Poor]

Bernie doesn't have the media saying he is unelectable every time he is on the news like Ron did.

[The Gold Standard]

Ron Paul's economic message wasn't what resonated with me. He brought in a lot of people from a lot of people.

Whatever message resonated, Bernie doesn't have it. But whatever floats your boat. At least you gave up with this nonsense about getting bribes out of politics.

[ShaneEnochs]

Whatever message resonated, Bernie doesn't have it. But whatever floats your boat. At least you gave up with this nonsense about getting bribes out of politics.

Remember when there were ten million threads when someone dropped out of the 2012 race about how everyone should be nice so people would come here and see how nice and hunky doory it was? These kinds of comments was why those threads needed to be created.

Some of the people on this site can't even fathom that opinions or leanings or candidates other than their own could be right or worthy. Then they write off everyone else as statists.

Bernie is all about campaign finance reform, and that's a big issue with me. Healthcare and college are also important, as is raising the minimum wage. I know many of you have differing opinions on those topics, but being in the hive mind of this forum doesn't elevate your opinion to fact. It's okay to have a difference of opinion, and having that difference doesn't mean that you can't respect the opinion of others.

[The Gold Standard]

Remember when there were ten million threads when someone dropped out of the 2012 race about how everyone should be nice so people would come here and see how nice and hunky doory it was? These kinds of comments was why those threads needed to be created.

Some of the people on this site can't even fathom that opinions or leanings or candidates other than their own could be right or worthy. Then they write off everyone else as statists.

Bernie is all about campaign finance reform, and that's a big issue with me. Healthcare and college are also important, as is raising the minimum wage. I know many of you have differing opinions on those topics, but being in the hive mind of this forum doesn't elevate your opinion to fact. It's okay to have a difference of opinion, and having that difference doesn't mean that you can't respect the opinion of others.

Well, you came here, and learned nothing, and aren't going to, so why keep being nice? I didn't even think I was being that bad. Maybe you need to go back to your Bernouts with your safe spaces and all of that shit.

That's fine if campaign finance reform is important to you. It means nothing to me, and it certainly does nothing to "get bribes out of politics", but if you like it, have at it. The rest of your views are shared by many who have no regard for the rights of others. Being robbed and robbing others does not appeal to me. Again, have at it if it appeals to you. The "hive mind" of this forum these days is all about protectionism and hating foreigners, so the rights of others seems to mean little to them too.

[ShaneEnochs]

Well, you came here, and learned nothing, and aren't going to, so why keep being nice? I didn't even think I was being that bad. Maybe you need to go back to your Bernouts with your safe spaces and all of that shit.

That's fine if campaign finance reform is important to you. It means nothing to me, and it certainly does nothing to "get bribes out of politics", but if you like it, have at it. The rest of your views are shared by many who have no regard for the rights of others. Being robbed and robbing others does not appeal to me. Again, have at it if it appeals to you. The "hive mind" of this forum these days is all about protectionism and hating foreigners, so the rights of others seems to mean little to them too.

Taxation isn't robbery. It's the price of civilization. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a country on this planet that has even half of the standard of living that we have that doesn't have taxes. I guess you could go down and live in the Bahamas, but unless you're a banker or some kind of tour guide, you're probably going to end up pretty poor.

[idiom]

That's it? You're not interested in getting huge amounts of private money (read: bribes) out of politics? Even right-wing folks should be able to get behind that.

That's not a policy. That's a before-the-policy policy.

You know what the problem is? The people to whom the bribes are going. Sanders most popular "policies" are actually just huge fucking bribes.

Expanding Medicare? Medicare is a huge fucking money shovel to vested interests.

Actual socialized medicine would mean expanding the VA system to cover every American. Bernie did a bang up job running that mess.

His general problem is that he actually identifies issues (no gold star for that) but then comes up with ideas that make them way worse.

Also "getting the money out of politics" is like "taxing the rich". The people doing the taxing and the campaign reform simply aren't as good at it as the people they are fighting, or they would be wealthy too.

The rich work day and night to avoid taxation and to accumulate wealth and power. It wasn't handed to them, they acquire it with immense discipline and effort. The major "bribes" don't go anywhere near campaigns.

Are you going to make it illegal to work on Wall street before or after working at the SEC? Going to cut defense spending? Going to repeal Obamacare? End Medicare? End Ethanol and agricultural subsidies? These are the real bribes.

[ShaneEnochs]

That's not a policy. That's a before-the-policy policy.

You know what the problem is? The people to whom the bribes are going. Sanders most popular "policies" are actually just huge fucking bribes.

Expanding Medicare? Medicare is a huge fucking money shovel to vested interests.

Actual socialized medicine would mean expanding the VA system to cover every American. Bernie did a bang up job running that mess.

His general problem is that he actually identifies issues (no gold star for that) but then comes up with ideas that make them way worse.

It's not even medicare that he's proposing. Medicare has premiums. His plan wouldn't, as it's fully funded through taxation. It's a single payer plan. As far as the VA, it had problems long before Sanders was on the Veteran's Affairs Committee. When the whole scandal went down, he and McCain passed a bipartisan Veterans Choice Act which helped a ton. It hired more doctors and nurses and created more hospitals to help drive down the wait times and help vets get the services that they needed in a timely manner.

[TheTexan]

I pay roughly $33,000/year in taxes between Federal, State, Medicare, and Social Security. Know what I get out of it? Some crumbling infrastructure. Know what I'd like to get out of it? Free college and healthcare would be a nice start.

Bernie can help you out with that.

For a 2.2% nominal fee

[TheTexan]

Bernie doewsn't have the media saying he is unelectable every time he is on the news like Ron did.

Well, Bernie isn't unelectable.

Because I've never heard the news say that

[ShaneEnochs]

Well, Bernie isn't unelectable.

Because I've never heard the news say that

You've never heard the news say that there was no way that Bernie could ever win? If not, I can definitely grab you a few dozen clips for you to watch.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

"Single-Payer" is a misnomer. What you advocate for is Government monopolization and nationalization of healthcare. Nothing less, nothing more. Couching it in endearing terms doesn't make it any less disastrous. Government incompetence and malfeasance is so plain as day all around us, but you have a bunch of people wanting to give more power and authority to that same institution. How can people be so blindly retarded?

If you want to reduce healthcare costs how about abolishing IP/Patents, AMA licensing, increasing competition across state borders, expanding HSA's, abolishing the idiotic idea of tying healthcare insurance to employment and the idea that "insurance" isn't exclusively meant for life-altering and extreme circumstance (which is what insurance is in any other realm of life). That's just a start - but, no, your idea is to nationalize the healthcare industry. Your views are more apropos to countries like Argentina or some Central African socialist dictatorship.

[ShaneEnochs]

Your views are more apropos to countries like Argentina or some Central African socialist dictatorship.

Or, you know, every other first world country on the planet except ours for whatever reason. But whatever.


"Single-Payer" is a misnomer. What you advocate for is Government monopolization and nationalization of healthcare. Nothing less, nothing more. Couching it in endearing terms doesn't make it any less disastrous. Government incompetence and malfeasance is so plain as day all around us, but you have a bunch of people wanting to give more power and authority to that same institution. How can people be so blindly retarded?

It's not a misnomer. Single payer is exactly what it is. Yes it's paid by the government through taxes, but it's still single payer since it's one entity paying instead of a crap-load of third party insurance companies. As far as "government monopolization and nationalization", absolutely. Healthcare is too important to be fucked around with by corporations more worried about their bottom line than the actual healthcare of patients. That's the entire reason that we're in this mess.


If you want to reduce healthcare costs how about abolishing IP/Patents, AMA licensing, increasing competition across state borders, expanding HSA's, abolishing the idiotic idea of tying healthcare insurance to employment and the idea that "insurance" isn't exclusively meant for life-altering and extreme circumstance (which is what insurance is in any other realm of life). That's just a start - but, no, your idea is to nationalize the healthcare industry.

We actually agree quite a bit here. I wouldn't go as far as abolishing patents, but I think they should be reduced down to maybe 2 or 3 years so pharmaceutical companies can recoup their research costs. I believe that there should also be some regulation on their advertising, since they spend about $5 BILLION annually on it. I'm also all for getting rid of AMA licensing.

Increasing competition across state borders is a tricky one, because we can see that this sometimes backfires when we look at cable companies. The top 3 basically gobbled up all the competition by agreeing among themselves not to go into each other's territory. This allowed them to skirt around monopoly laws very effectively.

I'm all for unlinking healthcare to employment. It's an absolutely absurd idea.

And I'd be absolutely fine carrying a very low premium insurance for emergency room visits and things like that, as long as they didn't have co-pays or deductibles since you don't have those in other types of insurance.

So I definitely think there's a lot of middle ground here for a lot of people on both sides of the aisle.

[P3ter_Griffin]

You've never heard the news say that there was no way that Bernie could ever win? If not, I can definitely grab you a few dozen clips for you to watch.

He is a hard headed one. I can vouch he'll need proof for any disagreement.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Or, you know, every other first world country on the planet except ours for whatever reason. But whatever.



It's not a misnomer. Single payer is exactly what it is. Yes it's paid by the government through taxes, but it's still single payer since it's one entity paying instead of a crap-load of third party insurance companies. As far as "government monopolization and nationalization", absolutely. Healthcare is too important to be fucked around with by corporations more worried about their bottom line than the actual healthcare of patients. That's the entire reason that we're in this mess.



We actually agree quite a bit here. I wouldn't go as far as abolishing patents, but I think they should be reduced down to maybe 2 or 3 years so pharmaceutical companies can recoup their research costs. I believe that there should also be some regulation on their advertising, since they spend about $5 BILLION annually on it. I'm also all for getting rid of AMA licensing.

Increasing competition across state borders is a tricky one, because we can see that this sometimes backfires when we look at cable companies. The top 3 basically gobbled up all the competition by agreeing among themselves not to go into each other's territory. This allowed them to skirt around monopoly laws very effectively.

I'm all for unlinking healthcare to employment. It's an absolutely absurd idea.

And I'd be absolutely fine carrying a very low premium insurance for emergency room visits and things like that, as long as they didn't have co-pays or deductibles since you don't have those in other types of insurance.

So I definitely think there's a lot of middle ground here for a lot of people on both sides of the aisle.

Brother it starts and ends with voluntary interactions. I have to imagine many Bernie supporters are not authoritarians. That if they thought about it, they would think that it is wrong that *everyone* must participate with their government. It is just that what Bernie advocates for is the form of government that they do want, in a voluntary society. That it just my impression. Do you reside in this camp? Are a large amount of Bernie supporters potential anarchist? If we frame it right?

[ShaneEnochs]

Brother it starts and ends with voluntary interactions. I have to imagine many Bernie supporters are not authoritarians. That if they thought about it, they would think that it is wrong that *everyone* must participate with their government. It is just that what Bernie advocates for is the form of government that they do want, in a voluntary society. That it just my impression. Do you reside in this camp? Are a large amount of Bernie supporters potential anarchist? If we frame it right?

Anarchist? No, not at all. I think it would be very difficult to find many in the Bernie camp that see themselves that way. I'm definitely not authoritarian, but I don't believe that you should be able to benefit from the government while not participating. That seems kind of absurd to me. If you buy something, that something got to the store using government funded roads and is safe (or should be) due to government regulation. If you're wronged, you're able to sue using the judicial infrastructure of the government. Anything that you do, even using the internet that you're using now wouldn't be possible without the Department of Defense originally shelling out the cash to figure out how to make it.

Unless one lives on a remote island by themselves, I don't really see how any kind of anarchy would even be plausible.

[VIDEODROME]

I'm not sure even Ron Paul is a potential Anarchist. :confused:

[ShaneEnochs]

I'm not sure even Ron Paul is a potential Anarchist. :confused:

He's not. He's a constitutionalist, and believes that the Federal Government definitely has a role.

[idiom]

Single Payer means "Single payer of the bribes"

Its just as bad as the system now except that everyone gets covered. You still get milked for 5 times what any other OECD nation pays for healthcare.

Sanders plan does almost nothing to address the actual fraud and racketeering in the system.

[ShaneEnochs]

Single Payer means "Single payer of the bribes"

Its just as bad as the system now except that everyone gets covered. You still get milked for 5 times what any other OECD nation pays for healthcare.

Sanders plan does almost nothing to address the actual fraud and racketeering in the system.

So we should say "fuck it" and do nothing?

[VIDEODROME]

He's not. He's a constitutionalist, and believes that the Federal Government definitely has a role.

Yeah, I just wondered if the core die hard Ron Paul supporters are Anarchists now?

[P3ter_Griffin]

Anarchist? No, not at all. I think it would be very difficult to find many in the Bernie camp that see themselves that way. I'm definitely not authoritarian, but I don't believe that you should be able to benefit from the government while not participating. That seems kind of absurd to me. If you buy something, that something got to the store using government funded roads and is safe (or should be) due to government regulation. If you're wronged, you're able to sue using the judicial infrastructure of the government. Anything that you do, even using the internet that you're using now wouldn't be possible without the Department of Defense originally shelling out the cash to figure out how to make it.

Unless one lives on a remote island by themselves, I don't really see how any kind of anarchy would even be plausible.

I never said anything about benefiting without contributing. If you truly are not an authoritarian you are alright by me. Would it not be mutually beneficial for a voluntary government to allow access to and charge for use of roads? By all means I'm not an authoritarian and wouldn't wish to force you to grant me access to your roads, but I have to imagine an agreement could be came to.

Being 'first' to discover some aspect of the natural science of the world does not grant you rights to the individuals who replicate it. Protecting one's infrastructure and allowing only those you choose access to it coincides with being nonauthoratarian, disallowing people from replicating it (by threat or application of force) does not.

[ShaneEnochs]

I never said anything about benefiting without contributing. If you truly are not an authoritarian you are alright by me. Would it not be mutually beneficial for a voluntary government to allow access to and charge for use of roads? By all means I'm not an authoritarian and wouldn't wish to force you to grant me access to your roads, but I have to imagine an agreement could be came to.

But then the poor wouldn't be able to use the roads, and would remain poor because of the inability to travel.

[P3ter_Griffin]

He's not. He's a constitutionalist, and believes that the Federal Government definitely has a role.

I really doubt he'd advocate arresting someone for not paying taxes or for not abiding by a law where the only victim is the state. But that is neither here nor there, we are talking about what is right, not what any one individual thinks is right.

[P3ter_Griffin]

But then the poor wouldn't be able to use the roads, and would remain poor because of the inability to travel.

And when they died I could help myself to their home. Win win, end the suffering and I get more stuff.

[idiom]

So we should say "fuck it" and do nothing?

Take the laws that apply to all other industries and remove the magic exemptions from the Medical industry. Poof. Problem solved.

Why is extortion fraud and racketeering legal for doctors but not anyone else? Why is cartel behaviour not prosecuted just because its medicine?

That would reduce medical costs by 80% to where most people could pay cash or find the cash for most things like in any other OECD country.

Then if you do want a real safety net start by buying one hospital in each Congressional district and give out a set amount of free care to all citizens.

It would be better operated as block funding to each state for state hospitals, but whatevs. Model the governance on the British NHS.

Now the really truely poor get actual healthcare without bankrupting the country. It tend to look like, the state will extract a bad tooth, but not give it a root canal. They provide a limited number of hip replacements etc per month.

Everyone else has free market health care that costs 20% of current charges.

[Cabal]

Here's how Ron Paul tends to compare to some more well-known anarchists.



"I don't like the use of force, I like voluntarism. That's what a free society is supposed to be all about." --Ron Paul

"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence." --Ron Paul

"Voluntary means no coercion. So, if you want to change people's habits, or change the world, you should do it by setting examples, and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So, voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go no matter what kind of problem you're looking at." --Ron Paul

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual." --Murray Rothbard

“Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.” --Murray Rothbard

“That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.” --Lysander Spooner

“This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." --Benjamin Tucker

"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State." --Benjamin Tucker



"All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the State." --Ron Paul

"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required for self-defense." --Ron Paul

“Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another.” --Murray Rothbard

"For everybody has a natural right to defend his own person and property against aggressors, but also to go to the assistance and defence of everybody else, whose person or property is invaded. The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an aggressor, and to go to the assistance and defence of every one else whose person or property is invaded, is a right without which men could not exist on earth." --Lysander Spooner

“A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, or by millions calling themselves a government.” --Lysander Spooner

"Aggression is simply another name for government. Aggression, invasion, government, are interconvertible terms. The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy." --Benjamin Tucker



"By the use of force, government comes with a gun, they take money from you, and build a highway that incidentally you can use because you don't have any other choices." --Ron Paul

"Who's the government? The government created nothing. The only thing they can do is steal, and rob people with a gun, and forcibly transfer wealth from one person to another." --Ron Paul

"The government, they have nothing. Everything they get and they want to give to someone else, they have to steal it from somebody. That's called taxation. The redistribution of wealth." --Ron Paul

“Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects.” --Murray Rothbard

“And, indeed, what is the State anyway but organized banditry? What is taxation but theft on a gigantic, unchecked, scale?" --Murray Rothbard

“It would be an instructive exercise for the skeptical reader to try to frame a definition of taxation which does not also include theft. Like the robber, the State demands money at the equivalent of gunpoint; if the taxpayer refuses to pay, his assets are seized by force, and if he should resist such depredation, he will be arrested or shot if he should continue to resist.” --Murray Rothbard

"Every activity of government, from courts to Congress, from sanitation workers to senators, from generals to attorney generals, from presidents to policemen, depends on stolen money." --Carl Watner

“If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.” --Lysander Spooner

"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat." --Lysander Spooner



"Governments, by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty--even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." --Ron Paul

“No man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire.” --Lysander Spooner

"How is it possible to sanction, under the law of equal liberty, the confiscation of a man's earnings to pay for protection which he has not sought and does not desire? And, if this is an outrage, what name shall we give to such confiscation when the victim is given, instead of bread, a stone, instead of protection, oppression? To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury. But that is exactly what the State is doing." --Benjamin Tucker



"The restraints placed on our government in the Constitution by the Founders did not work." --Ron Paul

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable in achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written." --Ron Paul

"The last few centuries were times when men tried to place constitutional and other limits on the State, only to find that such limits, as with all other attempts, have failed. Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check." --Murray Rothbard

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” --Lysander Spooner

[Bastiat's The Law]

I pay roughly $33,000/year in taxes between Federal, State, Medicare, and Social Security. Know what I get out of it? Some crumbling infrastructure. Know what I'd like to get out of it? Free college and healthcare would be a nice start.

That's assuming you'll still be able to make a living under comrade Bernie. Not to mention when something is provided "free" by government quality usually takes a nosedive. Case in point: The public school system we have now being utter dog shit.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Taxation isn't robbery. It's the price of civilization. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a country on this planet that has even half of the standard of living that we have that doesn't have taxes. I guess you could go down and live in the Bahamas, but unless you're a banker or some kind of tour guide, you're probably going to end up pretty poor.

Are income taxes voluntary? Would the state (that you endorse) throw you in a cage if you didn't cough up that $33,000 every year?

[ShaneEnochs]

Are income taxes voluntary? Would the state (that you endorse) throw you in a cage if you didn't cough up that $33,000 every year?

Are you making the case that you should be able to use the infrastructure of a country, paid for by taxes, and participate in an economy that uses said infrastructure, and not have to pay taxes yourself? That seems more like theft to me than taxes.

[brandon]

I don't think his message is really more popular at all. He is polling a shit load higher because it's essentially a two person race. Just a different dynamic than Ron Paul had.

If you polled the American public to see how many people support free enterprise over socialism, I think freedom would still prevail. (Or maybe not.... who knows)

[Bastiat's The Law]

Are you making the case that you should be able to use the infrastructure of a country, paid for by taxes, and participate in an economy that uses said infrastructure, and not have to pay taxes yourself? That seems more like theft to me than taxes.

There's a user fee already built into every gallon of gas sold. There's no reason why the market couldn't do something similar and produce a better produce. Heck, I could easily envision a larger up-front payment for lifetime access. There's lot of possibilities there. Whereas with government infrastructure you're never out from under their thumb and their hand in your pocket. There was a bridge into New York that was sold to the public as only making people pay a toll to use it until it was paid for, well low and behold years later the state is still collecting fees on it. If you rented to own something in the free market and still got hit with payments AFTER you paid it in full you'd tell that business to take a hike and probably never shop there again. With government's monopoly on infrastructure you don't have that opt out option.

I'm glad to educate you on gas tax, but I specifically asked you about income taxes.

[ShaneEnochs]

There's a user fee already built into every gallon of gas sold. There's no reason why the market couldn't do something similar and produce a better produce. Heck, I could easily envision a larger up-front payment for lifetime access. There's lot of possibilities there. Whereas with government infrastructure you're never out from under their thumb and their hand in your pocket. There was a bridge into New York that was sold to the public as only making people pay a toll to use it until it was paid for, well low and behold years later the state is still collecting fees on it. If you rented to own something in the free market and still got hit with payments AFTER you paid it in full you'd tell that business to take a hike and probably never shop there again. With government's monopoly on infrastructure you don't have that opt out option.

I'm glad to educate you on gas tax, but I specifically asked you about income taxes.

I don't think you could be more condescending if you tried, but that's okay. I forgive you.

Infrastructure doesn't just include roads. It also includes utilities such as water and electric. It also includes phone lines, not to mention the vast satellite network that allows you to have cable and GPS and cell phones. Municipalities and private companies do usually own and pay for a lot of it, but all of it is either subsidized or enabled in some way by the federal government. Even roads and bridges aren't fully funded through the gas tax. Quite a bit of your income taxes go to them too.

[VIDEODROME]

Are you making the case that you should be able to use the infrastructure of a country, paid for by taxes, and participate in an economy that uses said infrastructure, and not have to pay taxes yourself? That seems more like theft to me than taxes.

I'm wondering if the alternative is Privatize all the roads and we can voluntarily use them? Does that mean tollbooths or Prepass gates everywhere all run by different people?

Suppose in a way what we have now is Single Payer Roads.

I think we can consider different Public or Private solutions to address different issues. I think volunteerism or privatizing some things can lead to confusion where competition is not necessarily helpful

http://jasoncochran.com/blog/when-gangs-of-thugs-put-out-your-fires-boss-tweed-obamacare-and-big-pharma/

In some cases, order can emerge from individual efforts with out a central authority, but sometimes it can create even more chaos such as this example of private firefighters becoming competing gangs working for private insurance companies.

[thoughtomator]

Are you making the case that you should be able to use the infrastructure of a country, paid for by taxes, and participate in an economy that uses said infrastructure, and not have to pay taxes yourself? That seems more like theft to me than taxes.

Everybody pays the infrastructure taxes if they use them, they come from gas and sales taxes primarily. Hard to avoid those. You're not suggesting that people be subject to those taxes and not be able to use what they pay for, I assume.

Personally, I'd be fine without 100% of the things paid for by federal income taxes if I could be exempt. I'll do without the wars and bureaucracies and gun-running to Mexican cartels.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Free shit is more popular than freedom. What was truly shocking about Ron Paul's rise was so many people rallied behind the cause of liberty. Bernie's mess is just Hope n' Change 2.0: The Retards Strike Back, and the only consequence from Sanders' campaign would be to get himself a nice book deal

[HVACTech]

He's not. He's a constitutionalist, and believes that the Federal Government definitely has a role.

did our very own "Anti-Federalist" hear you say that? :confused:

[HVACTech]

Here's how Ron Paul tends to compare to some more well-known anarchists.

Ron Paul was a MinArchist. and in fact taught me what that word meant.

YES! Ron Paul does in fact "tend to compare" to anarchists. :rolleyes: so do I.

our CONstitution was designed for a Federation of existing States. much like the EU.
it was designed as a Constitutional FEDERATION of states. if this were NOT true... then WHY was the Bill of Rights added so much later?
( like almost 3 years later...) :eek:

[Working Poor]

Quite a bit of your income taxes go to them too.

No they don't other wise our infrastructures would not be falling down. Make no mistake our taxes are paying for wars, black budgets, and surveillance death and destruction of freedoms. Get a clue

[Anti Federalist]

I pay roughly $33,000/year in taxes between Federal, State, Medicare, and Social Security. Know what I get out of it? Some crumbling infrastructure. Know what I'd like to get out of it? Free college and healthcare would be a nice start.

You get war and Israel too.

[ShaneEnochs]

You get war and Israel too.

Well, thank God for that.

[Anti Federalist]

No they don't other wise our infrastructures would not be falling down. Make no mistake our taxes are paying for wars, black budgets, and surveillance death and destruction of freedoms. Get a clue

She's right, you know.

Federal spending on roads and infrastructure is a tiny portion of all federal spending.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/publications/total-spending-2015.png

[TheTexan]

She's right, you know.

Federal spending on roads and infrastructure is a tiny portion of all federal spending.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/publications/total-spending-2015.png

Bernie wants to make that a lot bigger. The increased road spending will create jobs. And better roads. For free I think.

Win/win/win

[TheTexan]

Here's how Ron Paul tends to compare to some more well-known anarchists.



"I don't like the use of force, I like voluntarism. That's what a free society is supposed to be all about." --Ron Paul

"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence." --Ron Paul

"Voluntary means no coercion. So, if you want to change people's habits, or change the world, you should do it by setting examples, and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So, voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go no matter what kind of problem you're looking at." --Ron Paul

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual." --Murray Rothbard

“Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.” --Murray Rothbard

“That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.” --Lysander Spooner

“This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." --Benjamin Tucker

"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State." --Benjamin Tucker



"All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the State." --Ron Paul

"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required for self-defense." --Ron Paul

“Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another.” --Murray Rothbard

"For everybody has a natural right to defend his own person and property against aggressors, but also to go to the assistance and defence of everybody else, whose person or property is invaded. The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an aggressor, and to go to the assistance and defence of every one else whose person or property is invaded, is a right without which men could not exist on earth." --Lysander Spooner

“A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, or by millions calling themselves a government.” --Lysander Spooner

"Aggression is simply another name for government. Aggression, invasion, government, are interconvertible terms. The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy." --Benjamin Tucker



"By the use of force, government comes with a gun, they take money from you, and build a highway that incidentally you can use because you don't have any other choices." --Ron Paul

"Who's the government? The government created nothing. The only thing they can do is steal, and rob people with a gun, and forcibly transfer wealth from one person to another." --Ron Paul

"The government, they have nothing. Everything they get and they want to give to someone else, they have to steal it from somebody. That's called taxation. The redistribution of wealth." --Ron Paul

“Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects.” --Murray Rothbard

“And, indeed, what is the State anyway but organized banditry? What is taxation but theft on a gigantic, unchecked, scale?" --Murray Rothbard

“It would be an instructive exercise for the skeptical reader to try to frame a definition of taxation which does not also include theft. Like the robber, the State demands money at the equivalent of gunpoint; if the taxpayer refuses to pay, his assets are seized by force, and if he should resist such depredation, he will be arrested or shot if he should continue to resist.” --Murray Rothbard

"Every activity of government, from courts to Congress, from sanitation workers to senators, from generals to attorney generals, from presidents to policemen, depends on stolen money." --Carl Watner

“If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.” --Lysander Spooner

"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat." --Lysander Spooner



"Governments, by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty--even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." --Ron Paul

“No man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire.” --Lysander Spooner

"How is it possible to sanction, under the law of equal liberty, the confiscation of a man's earnings to pay for protection which he has not sought and does not desire? And, if this is an outrage, what name shall we give to such confiscation when the victim is given, instead of bread, a stone, instead of protection, oppression? To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury. But that is exactly what the State is doing." --Benjamin Tucker



"The restraints placed on our government in the Constitution by the Founders did not work." --Ron Paul

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable in achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written." --Ron Paul

"The last few centuries were times when men tried to place constitutional and other limits on the State, only to find that such limits, as with all other attempts, have failed. Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check." --Murray Rothbard

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” --Lysander Spooner

Whats Ron's position on roads though? Because THAT what separates minarchists from anarchists. Anarchists hate roads.

[ShaneEnochs]

She's right, you know.

Federal spending on roads and infrastructure is a tiny portion of all federal spending.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/publications/total-spending-2015.png

I guess 77 billion is small in comparison with the budget as a whole, but it's not exactly lunch money.

[RJ Liberty]

You've never heard the news say that there was no way that Bernie could ever win? If not, I can definitely grab you a few dozen clips for you to watch.

Yep. For nearly a year, the DNC, Shillary, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, and the mainstream media have been calling Bernie Sanders "unelectable". It's been a daily smear from the DNC and the MSM. Shane, some people here just haven't been paying attention to this because they were 100% laser-focused on Rand winning (who can blame them?), which can't happen now.

From The Hill: Democrats: Sanders unelectable (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/254280-democrats-sanders-is-unelectable)
From Huffington Post: Why Bernie Sanders Is Unelectable (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-bauer/bernie-sanders_b_8295794.html)
From New Republic: Bernie Sanders Will Be Unelectable If He Keeps This Up (https://newrepublic.com/article/129115/bernie-sanders-will-unelectable-keeps)
From Salon: Paul Krugman has a sobering message for Bernie supporters (http://www.salon.com/2016/01/22/paul_krugman_dont_let_bernie_sanders_idealism_veer _into_destructive_self_indulgence_because_hes_goin g_down/)
From Daily Kos: Why Bernie Sanders Is Unelectable (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/8/1383378/-Why-Bernie-Sanders-Is-Unelectable)

etc, etc.

I think my 'favorite' hit piece was the Chicago Tribune piece actually calling Sanders a "menace to the Democratic Party", just before the NH primary. The hit pieces were no different for Ron Paul. The only difference between Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, in terms of electability, is that in 2012, the RNC folks at the Iowa caucuses cheated Ron Paul and his campaign by "losing" eight districts' worth of votes, making Ron Paul be "unelectable", by force. Meanwhile in 2016, the Clinton DNC people in Iowa cheated with rigged "coin tosses", but the actual results were so close even the MSM was forced to admit it was pretty much a tie. Then the landslide primary results for Sanders in New Hampshire sealed the deal. Few besides Clinton herself are calling Bernie "unelectable" now. In fact, it seems likely Sanders will win Nevada in just five days, according to the two most recent NV polls, and Sanders' upward trend. Breitbart is reporting that things look "ominous" for Clinton in Nevada.

[osan]

I hate to admit it, but as much as I was hopeful in 2012 for a breakthrough for Ron based on the great campaign ads and grassroots support, it seems like Bernie Sanders's message is gaining more traction by democratic and independent voters. Is it because of the "FREE STUFF" message he's espousing?

Does the shit Pope in the woods?

Seriously, though - yes, mostly. It's also his talk-much-say-nothing approach. He is doing precisely what Trump does, only appealing to progressive ignorance, weakness, and corruption. He is doing a sufficient job of it... not that it take much to suck those pathologically unsound "intellects" into his campaign of snake oil and cockroach spooge.

Give what we witnessed in NH, I don't think Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing over Frankenstein-in-drag.


Why was it than Ron was considered "crazy" for his extreme views on role of government but socialist Bernie is being embraced like wildfire?

Please tell us this was a rhetorical question.

Lie if you must.


Put it another way: how many Ron Paul supporters do you think support Bernie Sanders today

I would tend to think few, if any. If your support was based on anything better than mere band-wagoneering, I would think the mental gymnastics needed to jump from Ron to that ignoramus nonpareil would be too much even in this nation gone looney-tunes.


how many people who were against Ron Paul/support Bernie Sanders?

Shit tons? Can't fix stupid.


Especially young voters

In my observations I have noted with ample dismay that the average "millennial" is intellectually and attitudinally deficient to a degree that defies all credulity.


I saw a disturbing newscast that interviewed students supporting Bernie Sanders, and one student said, "Bernie Sanders was not a successful candidate before because he didn't have a generation like us."

*Shudders*

Pretty typical, it appears.

This nation is lost and will not recover without some form of "reset event". That much I can say with degree of confidence than frightens me. And they are now well into voting age, the block size growing every year with damned near every last one a functional idiot. They cannot be reasoned with and will not be separated from the insanely stupid political notions to which they have welded themselves. You'd have better luck prying a fundamentalist Muslim from his beloved pet pig. These people cannot be stopped by polite means. Read into that what you may. Freedom is now in a battle for its very existence, make you no mistake about it. An ever growing proportion of Americans no longer merely tolerate authoritarian collectivist tyranny, but demand it.

[osan]

Bernie could loosely be considered the "left's Ron Paul,"

I must vary with you here. He is the left's version of Trump, only far and away worse.


...only he is doing much better and actually has a good chance of getting elected.

Not sure I see this, given the NH result. The truly depressing aspect of this is that the Jackass party officials are not only making no effort to hide their perfidy, they seem to be heralding it from their minarets with unapologetic pride. The American people have uttered nary a peep in protest, much less anything of greater substance, thought it is possible that this apparent circumstance may be nothing other than the result of the media's sculpting of perceived reality.

[osan]

Of course it is.

It's some of the freedom, with all sorts of "free" stuff to go along with it.

I might rephrase that as a "gross and extremely distorted notion of freedom".

[osan]

Actually Ron Paul did great, but no news media outlet would cover his success.

On the money.


The only reason they are now covering Sanders, is because people are so damn pissed off with the media, and watching everything they do and say. It wasn't like that in 2007 and 2012. Ron Paul was a pioneer in exposing the corrupt news media, but too late for him. Sanders now has the benefit.

I doubt the media give a tinker's damn about what anyone thinks of them. The reason Sanders has coverage is because he is, in fact, an acceptable alternative to that pant-suited monster. I do believe Hillary stands the greatest chance of winning in November through rigging. If she falls for some as yet unforeseen reason, Bernie would be a far more palatable substitute than Trump. To my eyes, Theye are hedging, a valuable fringe-benefit being the appearance of diverse choice. Our lovable nitwit meaner needing but the flimsiest pretext upon which to grab hold in order to relieve himself of the burden of critical thought in favor blind belief.

[ShaneEnochs]

Not sure I see this, given the NH result. The truly depressing aspect of this is that the Jackass party officials are not only making no effort to hide their perfidy, they seem to be heralding it from their minarets with unapologetic pride. The American people have uttered nary a peep in protest, much less anything of greater substance, thought it is possible that this apparent circumstance may be nothing other than the result of the media's sculpting of perceived reality.

What do you mean? Sanders won by 22.2%. It was a blow out. He got 15 delegates to Hillary's 9. The media keeps pushing this narrative that Hillary got 15 as well, but they're counting superdelegates which is absurd because they're not in any way pledged. Hillary had way more than Obama did at this point in the race in 08 but when it became apparent who would win, they all switched sides. Now, admittedly Hillary's lead in superdelegates is greater now than it was in 08, but the results will be the same if it becomes clear that Hillary can't mathematically win. The DNC isn't going to risk alienating an enormous amount of independent voters who have declared (myself included) that if she wins because of superdelegate trickery that they will switch sides to Trump.

[osan]

There is almost nothing commendable to him except he is the least bad option.

Nah... every lowatt "intellect" I have met who supports Sanders seems to love Bernie-spooge, most eager gobble it up by the gallon. I suspect you are giving such people universes more credit for intellect and personal integrity than they deserve.

Very generous of you, but hardly realistic.

[osan]

What do you mean? Sanders won by 22.2%. It was a blow out. He got 15 delegates to Hillary's 9. The media keeps pushing this narrative that Hillary got 15 as well, but they're counting superdelegates which is absurd because they're not in any way pledged. Hillary had way more than Obama did at this point in the race in 08 but when it became apparent who would win, they all switched sides. Now, admittedly Hillary's lead in superdelegates is greater now than it was in 08, but the results will be the same if it becomes clear that Hillary can't mathematically win. The DNC isn't going to risk alienating an enormous amount of independent voters who have declared that if she wins because of superdelegate trickery that they will switch sides to Trump.

I can only go by what is reported. Did Hillary NOT win?

[ShaneEnochs]

I can only go by what is reported. Did Hillary NOT win?

She lost by a landslide. She won Iowa by 0.2%, if maybe that's what you're talking about.

[osan]

That's it? You're not interested in getting huge amounts of private money (read: bribes) out of politics? Even right-wing folks should be able to get behind that.

What leads you to believe he is sincere and not merely saying what people want to hear?

That aside, what is Sanders going to do against a hostile Congress? Issue and EO?

[osan]

She lost by a landslide. She won Iowa by 0.2%, if maybe that's what you're talking about.

Possibly so. Forgive me if I got my states confused. What I DO remember clearly is that Sanders purportedly won by a landslide, yet still lost. Assuming this is substantively correct, how else should one interpret it?

[ShaneEnochs]

What leads you to believe he is sincere and not merely saying what people want to hear?

There's literally no answer that I can give that would satisfy you, but the fact is he is financing his campaign through small donations and is refusing the help or support of any superpacs. He has a long history of speaking out against cronyism, and I believe him to be an honorable man.


That aside, what is Sanders going to do against a hostile Congress? Issue and EO?

There's nothing he can do except use the presidential bully pulpit to shame Congress and attempt to rally the American people to vote out politicians that are bought and paid for. That's what the "political revolution" that he wants to ignite is all about. Plus, he would appoint only justices that declare that they will overturn Citizens United. That'd be a pretty great start.

[ShaneEnochs]

Possibly so. Forgive me if I got my states confused. What I DO remember clearly is that Sanders purportedly won by a landslide, yet still lost. Assuming this is substantively correct, how else should one interpret it?

He didn't lose in any way, shape, or form. The vote was 60.4% for him and 38.0% for Hillary. He got 15 pledged delegates, she got 9 (NH is a proportional state). Again, in no way did he lose anything in New Hampshire: not by the vote nor the delegates.

[fr33]

My taxes will increase if Bernie gets his way. It's a shame that we live in a place that thieves like Bernie can run for president while people like me will be stolen from. I'd rather live in a place where I can kill people like Bernie for trying to steal from me. It's really a shame that a few people on this forum never understood liberty after being a member here for many years.

[RJ Liberty]

My taxes will increase if Bernie gets his way.

You are making more than $250,000 per year, fr33? (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/14/will-americans-get-bernt-by-sanders-tax-plan.aspx) I'm just curious because I haven't run into many millionaires on the internet. Aside from rich Nigerian princes, that is.

[ShaneEnochs]

My taxes will increase if Bernie gets his way. It's a shame that we live in a place that thieves like Bernie can run for president while people like me will be stolen from. I'd rather live in a place where I can kill people like Bernie for trying to steal from me. It's really a shame that a few people on this forum never understood liberty after being a member here for many years.

I'll make $106,000 this year. I currently pay right at $80/week for medical. My medical deductible is $5,000. Not great, but not terrible. So that comes out to $9,160 a year assuming that I pay the full deductible, which I probably will. That's not including my co-pays or anything.

With an increase in my taxes by 2.2% for his healthcare plan, that'll be an extra $2,332 a year, or about $45 a week, out of my paycheck. After that, I get healthcare with no premium, no deductible, and no co-pay. So my taxes would increase, but over the course of the year I'll save $6,828. That ain't bad.

[fr33]

You are making more than $250,000 per year, fr33? (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/14/will-americans-get-bernt-by-sanders-tax-plan.aspx) I'm just curious because I haven't run into many millionaires on the internet. Aside from rich Nigerian princes, that is.

I am definitely not a millionaire myself. But I am self employed and am president of my own corporation that is worth 8 digits. We do not always make money. There have been years where we lost money. We employ 7 people. They work hard but don't even compare to what us partner owners do. Things are a bit different when you compare family farms to other large businesses or corporations. Our earnings and investments are far grander than what we take home as a salary. Bernie's plans, if he succeeds, would ensure that we would have to cut back and fire employees. It's even worse for other small businesses that are worth 200 grand or more.

[ShaneEnochs]

I am definitely not a millionaire myself. But I am self employed and am president of my own corporation that is worth 8 digits. We do not always make money. There have been years where we lost money. We employ 7 people. They work hard but don't even compare to what us partner owners do. Things are a bit different when you compare family farms to other large businesses or corporations. Our earnings and investments are far grander than what we take home as a salary. Bernie's plans, if he succeeds, would ensure that we would have to cut back and fire employees. It's even worse for other small businesses that are worth 200 grand or more.

As far as I'm aware, Bernie hasn't released any specifics on what corporate taxes would be under his plan, besides the 6.2% tax for healthcare. In most instances, that would actually save corporations quite a bit of money if they're currently providing health insurance to their employees.

[fr33]

Can I get a "free" college "education" too? I've never had any use for one, but since Bernie wants to hand them out.... I'm sure the guys from the tire shop that we hire to change tractor flats will want that degree as well. Does that mean we'll have to pay more for tire shop employees? Or are we expected to bring in 3rd world immigrants to wipe our asses? Before WW1 an American could raise a large family and never go to college on such a wage.

People like Bernie Sanders are not a solution to the economy. He's part of the problem.

He was shit with his own money and he'd be shit with yours. For 3 decades Bernie earned 6 digits every year. Today his net worth is 500k.

[ShaneEnochs]

Can I get a "free" college "education" too? I've never had any use for one, but since Bernie wants to hand them out.... I'm sure the guys from the tire shop that we hire to change tractor flats will want that degree as well. Does that mean we'll have to pay more for tire shop employees? Or are we expected to bring in 3rd world immigrants to wipe our asses? Before WW1 an American could raise a large family and never go to college on such a wage.

I honestly don't know where you're going with this. Not everyone has to have a college education. Skilled labor is still an important part of our economy. I don't know why you would assume you'd have to pay more money for tire shop employees, since a fuck load of coffee house people have college degrees.


People like Bernie Sanders are not a solution to the economy. He's part of the problem.

He was shit with his own money and he'd be shit with yours. For 3 decades Bernie earned 6 digits every year. Today his net worth is 500k.

That $500k number is an estimate and doesn't take into account any assets that his wife may have. Given how he diversifies his money in mutual funds that performed pretty closely to the S&P, cost of living, and how much he donated to charity, best case scenario is that he should be worth a smidgen over a million dollars. I mean I can see where you're coming from, and I guess it's a valid line of attack, but his personal finances aren't as important to many people as they may be to you.

[fr33]

Not everyone has to have a college education.
No shit. What is Bernie's plan to keep us heathens from getting our "free" college education?


Skilled labor is still an important part of our economy. I don't know why you would assume you'd have to pay more money for tire shop employees, since a fuck load of coffee house people have college degrees.That's probably because you are so retarded that you don't realize that those coffee shop employees think they should be paid as much as the business owner.

[RJ Liberty]

I am definitely not a millionaire myself. But I am self employed and am president of my own corporation that is worth 8 digits. We do not always make money. There have been years where we lost money. We employ 7 people. They work hard but don't even compare to what us partner owners do. Things are a bit different when you compare family farms to other large businesses or corporations. Our earnings and investments are far grander than what we take home as a salary. Bernie's plans, if he succeeds, would ensure that we would have to cut back and fire employees. It's even worse for other small businesses that are worth 200 grand or more.

Thanks for the honest reply, fr33. There are two things about your reply that stick out to me: "We employ 7 people. They work hard but don't even compare to what us partner owners do." fr33, I've worked for too many employers who took for granted what their employees did for the company, and developed an attitude of I work harder than anyone because I own the company, and am thus motivated to make it succeed. I even had an employer who came in late to work nearly every day, was yet first out the door, took long lunch breaks, and even took classes while at work, and still had developed that "I'm the owner, I work harder" attitude. Now, obviously, I don't know your situation, so I'll leave my comment at that.

The other comment: "It's even worse for other small businesses that are worth 200 grand or more." To be honest, I don't believe a business worth $200,000 or more is a "small business", despite federal guidelines that clearly state otherwise.

Sanders' corporate tax plan is outlined here (https://berniesanders.com/issues/making-the-wealthy-pay-fair-share/), and it's hard to imagine which category your business falls into, which would cause your corporate taxes to go up: I very much doubt fr33 Incorporated is claiming to be an overseas company, I doubt you're stashing money in the Caiman Islands, and I doubt you're running a coal or oil company that has only seven employees. Sanders' plan calls for an exemption of anything below $3.5 million on the estate tax, and you've already said you don't make $3.5 million per year, so that's not it. I doubt your company does Wall Street speculation (because the comment about "working hard" wouldn't really make sense). Without intruding too much (and feel free to ignore this question if it's too intrusive), how would your company's taxes go up based on Sanders' proposal?

[ShaneEnochs]

No shit. What is Bernie's plan to keep us heathens from getting our "free" college education?

I don't understand what you're saying. Under his plan, if you applied and were accepted at a public college, you'd be able to go tuition free. There'd be no extra barriers than there are right now.


That's probably because you are so retarded that you don't realize that those coffee shop employees think they should be paid as much as the business owner.

Well, I pride myself on being a stupid person, of course. Even so, just because someone thinks they should be paid as much as a business owner doesn't mean that they are. So your point is moot in this case.

[P3ter_Griffin]

What do you mean? Sanders won by 22.2%. It was a blow out. He got 15 delegates to Hillary's 9. The media keeps pushing this narrative that Hillary got 15 as well, but they're counting superdelegates which is absurd because they're not in any way pledged. Hillary had way more than Obama did at this point in the race in 08 but when it became apparent who would win, they all switched sides. Now, admittedly Hillary's lead in superdelegates is greater now than it was in 08, but the results will be the same if it becomes clear that Hillary can't mathematically win. The DNC isn't going to risk alienating an enormous amount of independent voters who have declared (myself included) that if she wins because of superdelegate trickery that they will switch sides to Trump.

8 years later I'm sure you can see now why the establishment was okay with Obama winning. We will obviously have to wait to see what happens, and to know even if Hillary and the establishment will need to look at such a route. But if Bernie truly isn't an establishment horse I don't think they'd care if they lessoned their chances by alienating Bernie supporters. They would have 0 chance of winning if they didn't.

[idiom]

Nobodies taxes would fucking increase.

Nobody has ever successfully extracted more than 20% of GDP from the USA.


I don't understand what you're saying. Under his plan, if you applied and were accepted at a public college, you'd be able to go tuition free.

Unfortunately his plan doesn't do anything to reduce the actual cost. So lecturers would still be taking home 6 figs per lecture, just now they can give an infinite number of lectures.

[misterx]

I honestly don't know where you're going with this. Not everyone has to have a college education. Skilled labor is still an important part of our economy. I don't know why you would assume you'd have to pay more money for tire shop employees, since a fuck load of coffee house people have college degrees.


Exactly! Why should the government steal money from me to put other people through four years of college just so they can pour coffee for a living? I'm pretty sure they could learn to do that without wasting tens of thousands of other people's dollars.

[ShaneEnochs]

Exactly! Why should the government steal money from me to put other people through four years of college just so they can pour coffee for a living? I'm pretty sure they could learn to do that without wasting tens of thousands of other people's dollars.

Alright, but that's already happening. Student loans come from the government and are currently standing at over a trillion dollars.

[misterx]

Alright, but that's already happening. Student loans come from the government and are currently standing at over a trillion dollars.

So you'd like to add to the problem? And those are loans, not grants. The taxpayers won't be on the hook for it unless Sanders wins.

[ShaneEnochs]

So you'd like to add to the problem? And those are loans, not grants. The taxpayers won't be on the hook for it unless Sanders wins.

What exactly do you think happens when a student defaults on their loan debt?

[misterx]

What exactly do you think happens when a student defaults on their loan debt?

Come on.. you're smarter than that. The same thing that happens when someone defaults on any other loan. Or are loans not a profitable business in liberal lala land?

[ShaneEnochs]

Come on.. you're smarter than that. The same thing that happens when someone defaults on any other loan. Or are loans not a profitable business in liberal lala land?

When you default on a loan, the creditor writes it off as a loss and the government compensates. I don't think the government can write off losses like that. Tax payers are still on the hook.

[VIDEODROME]

These days, students can get income based repayment plans. If you're only working a part-time job while living with your parents or friends, you have a virtual zero payment.

[misterx]

When you default on a loan, the creditor writes it off as a loss and the government compensates. I don't think the government can write off losses like that. Tax payers are still on the hook.

Let me explain how business works to you. Lenders make a profit on every loan. Most people don't default on their loans, therefore they make enough profit on the performing loans to cover the losses on non-performing loans. Furthermore, when someone defaults on a sizable amount, creditors obtain a judgement against the debtor and seize his assets to cover the loan. The government has even more authority than private lenders to collect. They are actually arresting people who default:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?490342-U-S-Marshalls-Being-Deployed-for-Delinquent-Student-Debt

[K466]

More popular because Bernie is not as radical as Ron Paul. Not even close. Thus he doesn't scare off millions of federal workers and millions of special interests that Ron Paul did. Bernie is all about increasing momentum in government growth. Ron's agenda was more disruptive because he would actually reverse this insanity.

Also because Americans are really stupid...

[misterx]

More popular because Bernie is not as radical as Ron Paul. Not even close. Thus he doesn't scare off millions of federal workers and millions of special interests that Ron Paul did. Bernie is all about increasing momentum in government growth. Ron's agenda was more disruptive because he would actually reverse this insanity.

Also because Americans are really stupid...

That's a good point. Bernie just wants to double down on the current system. Ron was trying to overthrow the system.

[Anti Federalist]

I guess 77 billion is small in comparison with the budget as a whole, but it's not exactly lunch money.

Keep in mind that's "transportation", not just roads.

That's everything from road re-paving to airport VASI lights to sea buoys.

But hey, you know, a trillion here and a trillion there and, by damn, soon you're talking about real money.

[DamianTV]

Both Anarchist and Minarchist are labels, but there are other labels that can be applied which mean the same thing.

Would anyone agree or disagree that a Minarchist might also meet the definition of a Constitutional Moderate?

[Bastiat's The Law]

My taxes will increase if Bernie gets his way. It's a shame that we live in a place that thieves like Bernie can run for president while people like me will be stolen from. I'd rather live in a place where I can kill people like Bernie for trying to steal from me. It's really a shame that a few people on this forum never understood liberty after being a member here for many years.

Everyone's taxes will increase under Bernie regime. His capital gains taxation increases made me spit out my beverage reading through it's so preposterous.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I'll make $106,000 this year. I currently pay right at $80/week for medical. My medical deductible is $5,000. Not great, but not terrible. So that comes out to $9,160 a year assuming that I pay the full deductible, which I probably will. That's not including my co-pays or anything.

With an increase in my taxes by 2.2% for his healthcare plan, that'll be an extra $2,332 a year, or about $45 a week, out of my paycheck. After that, I get healthcare with no premium, no deductible, and no co-pay. So my taxes would increase, but over the course of the year I'll save $6,828. That ain't bad.

If you believe that your tax burden will actually decrease under comrade Bernie I got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't think you could be more condescending if you tried, but that's okay. I forgive you.

Well stupidity is dangerous. Stupid ideologies backed up by the force of government doubly so. I really wish I wasn't put into the position of caring about your views. I'd like nothing better than you Bernie bots to go somewhere and live in your communes with your shared toilet facilities, political correctness cultism, shared spouses, and whatever else you desire. Of course that would mean that your tribe would be the sole beneficiaries of your own destructive behavior so that has no chance in hell of happening.

"If you're in my wallet, you're on my mind."

[donnay]

Bernie's message "free students loans" is resonating across the country--lots of people are saddled with student loans and high interest rates that they mortgaged themselves into oblivion.

Of course they must have failed basic mathematics because ultimately they will pay for it somewhere down the road.

Like George Carlin said, "It's called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."

[TheTexan]

Nobodies taxes would fucking increase.

Nobody has ever successfully extracted more than 20% of GDP from the USA.

In the 1900's noone thought we would ever get close to 5% but we did. This is America -- we can do anything we put our mind to.

[ShaneEnochs]

Well stupidity is dangerous. Stupid ideologies backed up by the force of government doubly so. I really wish I wasn't put into the position of caring about your views. I'd like nothing better than you Bernie bots to go somewhere and live in your communes with your shared toilet facilities, political correctness cultism, shared spouses, and whatever else you desire. Of course that would mean that your tribe would be the sole beneficiaries of your own destructive behavior so that has no chance in hell of happening.

"If you're in my wallet, you're on my mind."

You're so full of shit. We have real world examples where his proposals exist and work. What country can you point to that has your ideologies? There are none, because your ideas are ridiculously naive in the modern era. You're a person who was born two hundred years too late to have your social darwinian utopia. Countries are judged by how they treat their lowest members, so thankfully your reckless ideas will never come to be.

[idiom]

In the 1900's noone thought we would ever get close to 5% but we did. This is America -- we can do anything we put our mind to.

No one had tried to get to 5%. The government has tried to get past 20% several times. The tax base just shrinks away.

[LittleLightShining]

I hate to admit it, but as much as I was hopeful in 2012 for a breakthrough for Ron based on the great campaign ads and grassroots support, it seems like Bernie Sanders's message is gaining more traction by democratic and independent voters. Is it because of the "FREE STUFF" message he's espousing?

Why was it than Ron was considered "crazy" for his extreme views on role of government but socialist Bernie is being embraced like wildfire?
People are already getting "free stuff" and are fully enmeshed in the system. More so now than any other. Bernie's isn't selling anything new.
He's taking what already exists to the next level, which he envisions to improve the quality of life for the majority of Americans.

Ron was "crazy" because people are already getting "free stuff" and are fully enmeshed in the system. His "smaller government" message was too scary to people (which does not necessarily make them weak).



Put it another way: how many Ron Paul supporters do you think support Bernie Sanders today, The overlap is significant.
and how many people who were against Ron Paul/support Bernie Sanders? Way more. But I think had Ron supporters engaged in more outreach to the left it would be pretty close to the same.



Especially young voters. I saw a disturbing newscast that interviewed students supporting Bernie Sanders, and one student said, "Bernie Sanders was not a successful candidate before because he didn't have a generation like us."

*Shudders* That doesn't disturb me at all. Gives me way more hope than Bernie.

[AuH20]

Bernie just wants to raid the treasury for his own reasons. It doesn't make him different from any lobbyist.

Ultimately, who watches Robin Hood? Who decides what is fair and just? The mob?

[AuH20]

You're so full of shit. We have real world examples where his proposals exist and work. What country can you point to that has your ideologies? There are none, because your ideas are ridiculously naive in the modern era. You're a person who was born two hundred years too late to have your social darwinian utopia. Countries are judged by how they treat their lowest members, so thankfully your reckless ideas will never come to be.

Not in a country of this size and with such profound cultural differences. Bernie, while his intentions may be noble, is simply paving a road to further misery.

[Okie RP fan]

Why are Bernie's policies being defended here?

Now I see how far this forum has truly fallen. This goes beyond being open to ideas, etc. that we preach. Bernie is the Socialist die that was cast by TPTB and it's clear his intent is to counter everything Ron Paul's movements did years past. How is that not obvious to everyone else?

He's copied so many aspects of Ron Paul's campaign it's not even funny. The only difference is that Ron Paul's following actually understood economics to the basic core. Bernie's doesn't and won't. They're all mooching losers who want "Free things" that the rest of us will have to pay for.

Tax Wall Street? Sure, go for it, then watch those companies leave to other countries. It's been happening for decades, is still happening, and will only quicken under a Bernie regime. After that happens, the actual workers in this country will be left with the burden while all of the mindless soma induced bots live off of welfare and receive "free" secondary indoctrination. Then they'll protest once a week and riot that someone said something politically incorrect or made them actually pay for a service, at which point the gestapo will be in to round up and black bag the so called guilty parties.

Sound crazy? Maybe it is… But I've read too many and seen too many historical documents, texts, videos, speeches, novels, movies, etc. that indicate this is our future under Bernie (or anyone for that matter).

The question is and always has been - how fast will we reach that point? Fast, or slow?

So, back in response to those defending Bernie, GTFO seriously. I didn't come on this forum years ago to be preached at and seen minds changed in favor of the policies we've so vehemently rallied against for the sake of individual liberty and common sense. There are plenty of other places for you t go circle jerk with socialists and leftists.

One last thing: I should add that Bernie will only expand the current rigged system to it's full potential. Of course the groundwork has been laid for decades, but we've reached a point that the endgame is nigh. Some argue it's already here.

Yay!

[ShaneEnochs]

Why are Bernie's policies being defended here?

Now I see how far this forum has truly fallen. This goes beyond being open to ideas, etc. that we preach. Bernie is the Socialist die that was cast by TPTB and it's clear his intent is to counter everything Ron Paul's movements did years past. How is that not obvious to everyone else?

He's copied so many aspects of Ron Paul's campaign it's not even funny. The only difference is that Ron Paul's following actually understood economics to the basic core. Bernie's doesn't and won't. They're all mooching losers who want "Free things" that the rest of us will have to pay for.

Tax Wall Street? Sure, go for it, then watch those companies leave to other countries. It's been happening for decades, is still happening, and will only quicken under a Bernie regime. After that happens, the actual workers in this country will be left with the burden while all of the mindless soma induced bots live off of welfare and receive "free" secondary indoctrination. Then they'll protest once a week and riot that someone said something politically incorrect or made them actually pay for a service, at which point the gestapo will be in to round up and black bag the so called guilty parties.

Sound crazy? Maybe it is… But I've read too many and seen too many historical documents, texts, videos, speeches, novels, movies, etc. that indicate this is our future under Bernie (or anyone for that matter).

The question is and always has been - how fast will we reach that point? Fast, or slow?

So, back in response to those defending Bernie, GTFO seriously. I didn't come on this forum years ago to be preached at and seen minds changed in favor of the policies we've so vehemently rallied against for the sake of individual liberty and common sense. There are plenty of other places for you t go circle jerk with socialists and leftists.

One last thing: I should add that Bernie will only expand the current rigged system to it's full potential. Of course the groundwork has been laid for decades, but we've reached a point that the endgame is nigh. Some argue it's already here.

Yay!

You realize that it's not just low income "moochers", as you call them, that supports him, right? There are tons of middle class voters (including myself) that supports him. His proposals would benefit people at my income level as well.

[Crashland]

I don't agree with ShaneEnochs on pretty much anything in this thread, but this is a good example of what some in the liberty movement are just having a real hard time swallowing. The hardcore libertarian movement, or at least for economic liberty, is much smaller than many here were lead to believe, and this was true even during the height of Ron's campaign in 2012.

[Cabal]

Why are Bernie's policies being defended here?

Because some leftist feels the need to defend their support of a state socialist authoritarian and absurdly parade it around as if it were in any way aligned with a position of liberty.

[idiom]

You realize that it's not just low income "moochers", as you call them, that supports him, right? There are tons of middle class voters (including myself) that supports him. His proposals would benefit people at my income level as well.

Mostly his proposals fail to address the bleeding obvious problems that have been solved in other countries where similar policies have been implemented. Without addressing those problems his policies will just make things worse.

Plenty of countries have socialized healthcare. In the US it will turn out like the VA writ large because the fraud hasn't been addressed.

[LittleLightShining]

So, back in response to those defending Bernie, GTFO seriously. I didn't come on this forum years ago to be preached at and seen minds changed in favor of the policies we've so vehemently rallied against for the sake of individual liberty and common sense. There are plenty of other places for you t go circle jerk with socialists and leftists.

One last thing: I should add that Bernie will only expand the current rigged system to it's full potential. Of course the groundwork has been laid for decades, but we've reached a point that the endgame is nigh. Some argue it's already here.

Yay!
And therein lies the problem with the liberty "movement".

I came on this forum years ago as a leftist to learn what I could about this guy, Ron Paul, who was talking about the Federal Reserve and wanted to end the wars. The more I learned the more zealous I became. Ron was the total package. I tainted myself by getting involved with the GOP to get Republicans to support Ron. I threw a frickin tea party to spread the word about Ron and educate people about the Federal Reserve, co-operative banking, the 10th Amendment... I personally converted more people than I can count. ON ISSUES. WITH PEOPLE. WHO VOTED.

I don't even care if you vote. More will change based on SCOTUS than with whoever is elected. However, I do believe that by turning their noses away from "socialists" and "leftists" the "liberty movement" is wasting an opportunity to share the non-aggression principle with the voters most likely to embrace it.

[mczerone]

I pay roughly $33,000/year in taxes between Federal, State, Medicare, and Social Security. Know what I get out of it? Some crumbling infrastructure. Know what I'd like to get out of it? Free college and healthcare would be a nice start.

Your mistake is thinking that any of the existing spending will be reformed, redirected, or fixed in any way. There are bureaucrats' jobs behind those failed programs!

[mczerone]

You realize that it's not just low income "moochers", as you call them, that supports him, right? There are tons of middle class voters (including myself) that supports him. His proposals would benefit people at my income level as well.

Initially, maybe. But everyone except the politically connected will be in the ever growing "low income" class after not too long.

[ShaneEnochs]

And therein lies the problem with the liberty "movement".

I came on this forum years ago as a leftist to learn what I could about this guy, Ron Paul, who was talking about the Federal Reserve and wanted to end the wars. The more I learned the more zealous I became. Ron was the total package. I tainted myself by getting involved with the GOP to get Republicans to support Ron. I threw a frickin tea party to spread the word about Ron and educate people about the Federal Reserve, co-operative banking, the 10th Amendment... I personally converted more people than I can count. ON ISSUES. WITH PEOPLE. WHO VOTED.

I don't even care if you vote. More will change based on SCOTUS than with whoever is elected. However, I do believe that by turning their noses away from "socialists" and "leftists" the "liberty movement" is wasting an opportunity to share the non-aggression principle with the voters most likely to embrace it.

Exactly this. There were many things that attracted me to Ron Paul, and none of them had to do with his economics which seems to be what most people on here care about. That's fine, of course. We all care about different things. I care about economics as well, but I don't subscribe to the Austrian economics theory. I think there are a lot of good tenants in it, of course, like allowing the natural cycles of booms and busts instead of propping up a particular market, but I believe that spending is a very important part of our economy as well.

There isn't a single lever on the economy. You have to find the right balance between Keynesian and Austrian, and that balance can shift back and forth. Believing that "well, if we just did these one or two things everything would be amazing" is a pretty naive way to look at something as complex as the economy.

But getting back to the topic at hand, I supported Ron Paul with all my heart and soul. It's disappointing to see people on this board trying to break up the coalition of different people and ideas that he was able to stitch together just because they disagree with other people's worldviews.

[mczerone]

Exactly this. There were many things that attracted me to Ron Paul, and none of them had to do with his economics which seems to be what most people on here care about. That's fine, of course. We all care about different things. I care about economics as well, but I don't subscribe to the Austrian economics theory. I think there are a lot of good tenants in it, of course, like allowing the natural cycles of booms and busts instead of propping up a particular market, but I believe that spending is a very important part of our economy as well.

There isn't a single lever on the economy. You have to find the right balance between Keynesian and Austrian, and that balance can shift back and forth. Believing that "well, if we just did these one or two things everything would be amazing" is a pretty naive way to look at something as complex as the economy.

But getting back to the topic at hand, I supported Ron Paul with all my heart and soul. It's disappointing to see people on this board trying to break up the coalition of different people and ideas that he was able to stitch together just because they disagree with other people's worldviews.

And it's disappointing to see people on this board who don't understand how their worldviews are just a slightly different flavor of those that got us into the mess that Ron Paul was a reaction against.

[Cabal]

However, I do believe that by turning their noses away from "socialists" and "leftists" the "liberty movement" is wasting an opportunity to share the non-aggression principle with the voters most likely to embrace it.

Nonsense. I've never known anyone who truly promotes NAP to be shy about sharing it with anyone who is willing to listen. Many people within this so-called "liberty movement," at least where RPF is concerned, don't give a fuck about NAP, and may even openly oppose it outright, including the state socialists you're defending who fundamentally reject it.

[idiom]

The NAP is far from core to wanting to rationalise government and promote freedom.

The NAP is core to going home and not voting.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Exactly this. There were many things that attracted me to Ron Paul, and none of them had to do with his economics which seems to be what most people on here care about. That's fine, of course. We all care about different things. I care about economics as well, but I don't subscribe to the Austrian economics theory. I think there are a lot of good tenants in it, of course, like allowing the natural cycles of booms and busts instead of propping up a particular market, but I believe that spending is a very important part of our economy as well.

There isn't a single lever on the economy. You have to find the right balance between Keynesian and Austrian, and that balance can shift back and forth. Believing that "well, if we just did these one or two things everything would be amazing" is a pretty naive way to look at something as complex as the economy.

But getting back to the topic at hand, I supported Ron Paul with all my heart and soul. It's disappointing to see people on this board trying to break up the coalition of different people and ideas that he was able to stitch together just because they disagree with other people's worldviews.

I'm sorry Shane, but I am genuinely having a hard time believe you supported Ron Paul so vehemently after repeatedly denigrating his economic policy. If he were campaigning today, I would imagine you would be calling him a kook "born two hundred years too late to have [his] social darwinian utopia" as you put it. When he was running, didn't you fear him cutting social welfare programs if elected? Driving us into the past with his economic policy? Again I'm not trying to sound like a jackass I am really curious.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

And therein lies the problem with the liberty "movement".

I came on this forum years ago as a leftist to learn what I could about this guy, Ron Paul, who was talking about the Federal Reserve and wanted to end the wars. The more I learned the more zealous I became. Ron was the total package. I tainted myself by getting involved with the GOP to get Republicans to support Ron. I threw a frickin tea party to spread the word about Ron and educate people about the Federal Reserve, co-operative banking, the 10th Amendment... I personally converted more people than I can count. ON ISSUES. WITH PEOPLE. WHO VOTED.

I don't even care if you vote. More will change based on SCOTUS than with whoever is elected. However, I do believe that by turning their noses away from "socialists" and "leftists" the "liberty movement" is wasting an opportunity to share the non-aggression principle with the voters most likely to embrace it.

Yes, and vice-versa with "Leftists" and "Socialists" turning their noses away from liberty principled solutions (i.e. not solely looking to government as a panacea to solve all societal woes).

[idiom]

I'm sorry Shane, but I am genuinely having a hard time believe you supported Ron Paul so vehemently after repeatedly denigrating his economic policy. If he were campaigning today, I would imagine you would be calling him a kook "born two hundred years too late to have [his] social darwinian utopia" as you put it. When he was running, didn't you fear him cutting social welfare programs if elected? Driving us into the past with his economic policy? Again I'm not trying to sound like a jackass I am really curious.

RP specifically ran on saving welfare by cutting everything else.

[ShaneEnochs]

I'm sorry Shane, but I am genuinely having a hard time believe you supported Ron Paul so vehemently after repeatedly denigrating his economic policy. If he were campaigning today, I would imagine you would be calling him a kook "born two hundred years too late to have [his] social darwinian utopia" as you put it. When he was running, didn't you fear him cutting social welfare programs if elected? Driving us into the past with his economic policy? Again I'm not trying to sound like a jackass I am really curious.

No. His economic proposals are wildly unpopular in this country so I knew Congress wouldn't enact them.