Why Ron Paul Democrats and Ron Paul Republicans can Coexist

[dshields]

It is time to make a united stand on principles we can except across all parties.

As Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and other party affiliations we can all stand for the same principle yet maintain independent political views.

It is clear Ron Paul has brought people of all walks of life together under one vision, so why can't we maintain the core principles that have brought us here and bring them back to our parties.

Since we are discussing running for local Congressional and Senatorial offices we should be in agreement on what principle we run and operate under. Below is the start of such an agreement. Please comment and add.

The Ron Paul Memorandum of Understanding (MoU Agreement):

1. The Constitution as written reigns supreme. Procedure to amend the Constitution shall be followed as written by the Founders.
2. The intentions of the Founding Fathers would be a guiding principle in their decisions, such as Foreign Policy, Free Markets, and of course our personal Liberties which are God/Natural given and not granted by Government.
3. This is a Nation of Sovereign Citizens and not a Nation of subjects.
4. States are Sovereign and are a better place for law to be created (see number 5 below)
5. A politician's time is better spent at home then actually working in Congress. (In other words, don't create law just to do it)
6. The belief that Citizens (you and I) can better and more expertly manage their lives.
7. Our Nations Economy and Monetary System is best managed by the free Markets.

Care to add to this list? Perhaps we should create a list that bounds all who wish to run on Constitutional Principle.

As you can see, you can have different Political views but still follow these beliefs.

Just some thoughts,

Dave

[MS0453]

10th amendment and de-centralization. Stop fighting over federal funds like barbarians and allow for the states to govern themselves, as they see fit.

[Vendico]

Dave, you should blog this and put it on Digg.com

[RPTXState]

personal liberties are not "God-given" to atheists. "Natural rights" sounds better.

EDIT: clarifing-remove God-given since there are many atheists/non-theists/non-Christians in our movement

[fortilite]

I love my Ron Paul Democrats, Republicans, and Liberterians equally. Just don't be a Ron Paul Socialist / Communist because then you're just crazy.

[OferNave]

personal liberties are not "God-given" to atheists. "Natural rights" sounds better.

EDIT: clarifing-remove God-given since there are many atheists/non-theists/non-Christians in our movement

Like me.

I tolerate all the talk of "god-given rights" because they're the same rights I consciously choose to believe in, so it's silly to complain when you're getting what you want, but it does irk me. I don't expect a miracle from a mostly religious country, though. :) (uh... pun not intended)

[OferNave]

I should also add that I find this talk of RP Republicans and RP Democrats silly. If you believe in Ron Paul's principles and platforms, what's the point of tacking a party name to it? The whole point of a party (originally, anyway) is to represent a set of principles as a platform. If you believe in RP's platform, that replaces 'Republican' or 'Democrat'.

The Republican party has traditionally best matched Ron Paul's principles, so he's using it to run for President, and many of us will use it to run for Congress, but the notion of a Ron Paul Democrat is ludicrous, and even attaching it to the Republican party would be undesireable if not for the political reality that it's the most practical way to succeed in the short term.

[JoeH]

personal liberties are not "God-given" to atheists. "Natural rights" sounds better.

EDIT: clarifing-remove God-given since there are many atheists/non-theists/non-Christians in our movement

I think something along the lines of the Declaration of Independence either "God given" or "Endowed by our Creator" is a must.

Here's why:

So many forms of socialism espouse this "natural" belief system such as 'only a village can raise a child'. This is very dangerous IMO.

It turns Rights (note the capital r) into rights that are up for debate or a vote.

Rights are absolute. They cannot be taken away by anyone or any group of people.

We live in a republic. We espouse that system of government. Democracies suck. Democracies are merely mob rules. You can vote anything away from anyone at any time.

By being very specific (I prefer the "endowed by our Creator") we can attempt to limit the distortion of WHO and HOW we get our Rights.

Creator can mean God for me, you Parent(s) for you and a tree for someone else.

I do believe in todays every evolving nanny-state mentality we must be very clear and specific.

I also know all of my atheist friends will accept the wording "Creator" as well.

For anyone still not following, google the word Right vs the word privilege.

[Fyretrohl]

I still like Ron Paulitician better. :)

[10thAmendmentMan]

I love my Ron Paul Democrats, Republicans, and Liberterians equally. Just don't be a Ron Paul Socialist / Communist because then you're just crazy.

They may be crazy but could still support Ron Paul with no logical lapse. If Massachusetts, for example, wanted to turn itself into Sweden, under a Ron Paul-esque federal government they very well could (for the most part). Just as long as those of us who want a freer society are able to escape, I'm fine with them living as they want.

[voytechs]

Like me.

I tolerate all the talk of "god-given rights" because they're the same rights I consciously choose to believe in, so it's silly to complain when you're getting what you want, but it does irk me. I don't expect a miracle from a mostly religious country, though. :) (uh... pun not intended)

I think we can all agree that these rights were not given by the government which is the main thing, and thus can not be taken away by it.

[Splendor]

I'm a little confused about what you mean by #5.

[rightobeleftalone]

Do you suppose we could dissolve the federal gov't altogether and declare the fifty states as fifty sovereign countries? Or perhaps groups of states say like the south becoming a country and the northeast another, the southwest another? Smaller seems to work out much better when thinking of countries ie: Switzerland.

[MS0453]

I think something along the lines of the Declaration of Independence either "God given" or "Endowed by our Creator" is a must.

Here's why:

So many forms of socialism espouse this "natural" belief system such as 'only a village can raise a child'. This is very dangerous IMO.

It turns Rights (note the capital r) into rights that are up for debate or a vote.

Rights are absolute. They cannot be taken away by anyone or any group of people.

We live in a republic. We espouse that system of government. Democracies suck. Democracies are merely mob rules. You can vote anything away from anyone at any time.

By being very specific (I prefer the "endowed by our Creator") we can attempt to limit the distortion of WHO and HOW we get our Rights.

Creator can mean God for me, you Parent(s) for you and a tree for someone else.

I do believe in todays every evolving nanny-state mentality we must be very clear and specific.

I also know all of my atheist friends will accept the wording "Creator" as well.

For anyone still not following, google the word Right vs the word privilege.



You've got it backwards. The notion of "only a village can raise a child" has nothing to do with nature or natural. Haven't you heard the phrase, "the new communist man"? (or new socialist man)

Natural law and natural rights is based around the concept of mans reason, sapience, etc all that good stuff. aka mans nature

[Voluntaryist]

Most "real" Dems (and Dkos style Dems) will never ever agree with #7.

Of course, I think thats foolish. Free markets are better at EVERYTHING, but try getting a Dem to agree with that...

[Splendor]

Most "real" Dems (and Dkos style Dems) will never ever agree with #7.

Of course, I think thats foolish. Free markets are better at EVERYTHING, but try getting a Dem to agree with that...

Maybe...I think a lot of people who vote Dem do so because they feel Socialialy Liberal policies are more important the Fiscally Conservative policies (maybe not most...but a large amount). That's why I love RP. He's the best of both worlds. :)

[dshields]

I should also add that I find this talk of RP Republicans and RP Democrats silly. If you believe in Ron Paul's principles and platforms, what's the point of tacking a party name to it? The whole point of a party (originally, anyway) is to represent a set of principles as a platform. If you believe in RP's platform, that replaces 'Republican' or 'Democrat'.

The Republican party has traditionally best matched Ron Paul's principles, so he's using it to run for President, and many of us will use it to run for Congress, but the notion of a Ron Paul Democrat is ludicrous, and even attaching it to the Republican party would be undesireable if not for the political reality that it's the most practical way to succeed in the short term.

I would disagree. The purpose of this "Understanding" is to establish Principle. You have to realize, Democrat and Republican differences aren't suppose to really stand out at a "Federal" level where it would at a State or local level.

The Federal Government is support to be a unifying Government of Sovereign States in which laws are created independently. By Republicans and Democrats agreeing to the above principles they are essentially acknowledging that the Federal Government is not a platform to make binding partisan law that would undermine State law. Therefore there jobs would become rather simple.

Ultimately, each state has their own Constitution to govern the creation and enforcement of law. This is ultimately what we need to protect at the Federal level and is essentially the purpose of the above stated principles.

Lastly, I would like to point out that a "Memorandum of Understanding" is technically a legally binding agreement, so the signers would obviously be obligated to hold up their part of the agreement. The other purpose of this agreement is a way for us to certify candidates that we would support, raise money, and campaign for.

Dave