Dr. Paul supports even don't get it?

[ThomasJ]

I have been on the forums for a good while now.

There is a select group of supporters that are here just because of the anti-war stance that just cannot wrap their heads around what Objectivism is vs Collectivism.

It really does astound me how many defend the Stateist mentality or laws.

Anyone else notice this?

[sethay]

Take myself for example.

What caught my eye was his ant-war stance. I also loved his individual rights vs group rights. I am a men's rights activist, which means I am fighting for genders to be treated equally under the law. Dr. Paul is the best candidate for this.

However, even if I do not completely agree with total libertarianism, we are still on the same team and are fighting to get the same honest man into the white house.

Did you have some specific reason to bring this up? Some reason that will help Dr. Paul?

[Paul Revered]

I don't completely agree with Ron Paul. The reason why; is that he believes in the Constitution. I believe in the Constitution, but I don't completely agree with it. The reason that I don't Completely agree with it, is because it protects our individual liberties. I don't agree with everyone. What I realize, is that in order to be free to exercise my liberties; I must be accepting of the liberties of others. We don't all have the same values. Ron Paul offers each person something a little bit different. The beauty is, is that we all get something. I find it very refreshing; as I usually ask my self during every election; " I wonder what rights I'll lose this time."

[AlexMerced]

What I love about Ron Paul is his willing to philosophize and make logical arguments, though the GIuliani exchange is what first prompted me too look deeper.

I agree with ROn Paul 100%

[pcosmar]

Take myself for example.

What caught my eye was his ant-war stance. I also loved his individual rights vs group rights. I am a men's rights activist, which means I am fighting for genders to be treated equally under the law. Dr. Paul is the best candidate for this.

However, even if I do not completely agree with total libertarianism, we are still on the same team and are fighting to get the same honest man into the white house.

Did you have some specific reason to bring this up? Some reason that will help Dr. Paul?

Now see, I came from a different direction. I was looking into the 2nd amendment, amd someone mentioned H.R.1096, I looked and liked and looked some more.
His anti-war (anti-stupid war,preemptive, unjust war) took me a little longer.
I liked his positions on the Constitution and personal liberty , a research more and learned more.
Some History that I was unaware of showed that he was again correct. Our Foreign policy has indeed caused many problems and needs to change.
And though I don't fully understand all the dynamics of his economic positions, from what I am learning ( he has made me research and learn) he seems to have a handle on that too.
Though it seems we all come here for different reasons the Message is powerful and unites us.
If we can wake enough up, there is hope.

[nodope0695]

I beleive in Individual Liberty and the responsibility that goes with it. I believe that all people should be treated equally under the law, and that one may do as he or she pleases, so long as it doesn't violate somebody else's rights of life, liberty, or property.

I am also against the war, and against any war that is not declared by congress, and which is preemptive or aggressive in nature.

I am against the central bank system (The Fed), and beleive our money should be comodity based.

I held these beliefs before I knew about Ron Paul. I thought I was alone, and was very frustrated with politics and wondered if there was an honest politician left in the country.

Thats when I learned of Ron Paul, and boy did it feel good to not be alone anymore. I support him 100% on all of the issues. Its hard to argue with common sense. I don't know about your question about individualism and collectivism, but it can't be denied that supporters of Ron Paul share alot of common beliefs - it is almost as if we are members of a fraternal order. Sure, we're disfunctional at times, but it would be boring if we always had harmony.

If you're wondering if we're mindless sheep, following blindly...NO SIR. Ron Paul supporter THINK, and use their intellect for good (at least the ones I've met do). :)

[Abyss]

What ever floats your boat and makes you want to be a RP supporter.

I personally agree with him on 100% of his issues, and on his platform completely.

But if all that you need from him to vote for him is that his name "Ron Paul" has a nice ring to it then I support that as well. You'll be way better in the long run without knowing it now.

[Ex Post Facto]

When I think of Ron Paul's message I think of that movie the "Network" I'm Mad and I'm not going to take it anymore. I am willing to support someone for making a decision that goes against my beliefs if there is a logical method to the thought rationale used to arrive at a determination. That is why, in my opinion, Ron Paul has such wide spread support. He is able to make a logical arguement on the issues. Whether you support those ideas or not, you stand in awe at that method in which the opinion was reached.

[ForrestLayne]

While I too do not agree 100% with everything Dr. Paul supports and advocates, I am also doing research. I am sure that there has not been nor will ever be "my perfect candidate".

What I see in Dr. Paul's platform is a way to get government back close to the people. He wants to basic follow the idea of:

If it is not in the constitution, the FEDERAL government should not be doing it

This is in contrast to the current philosophy of:

If it does not say in the constitution we can't, then we can and will.

This is a big difference -

I also do not like the pre-emptive idea at all.

We need to have a strong national DEFENSE not OFFENSE.

I oppose the "protecting our interests so we have to be there" philosophy.

Many foreign countries have interests in the USA. Following OUR lead, why shouldn't they need military bases in our country to protect their interests?

Government at its lowest point, close to the people - why is that bad?

[mosquitobite]

I beleive in Individual Liberty and the responsibility that goes with it. I believe that all people should be treated equally under the law, and that one may do as he or she pleases, so long as it doesn't violate somebody else's rights of life, liberty, or property.

I am also against the war, and against any war that is not declared by congress, and which is preemptive or aggressive in nature.

I am against the central bank system (The Fed), and beleive our money should be comodity based.

I held these beliefs before I knew about Ron Paul. I thought I was alone, and was very frustrated with politics and wondered if there was an honest politician left in the country.

Thats when I learned of Ron Paul, and boy did it feel good to not be alone anymore. I support him 100% on all of the issues. Its hard to argue with common sense. I don't know about your question about individualism and collectivism, but it can't be denied that supporters of Ron Paul share alot of common beliefs - it is almost as if we are members of a fraternal order. Sure, we're disfunctional at times, but it would be boring if we always had harmony.

If you're wondering if we're mindless sheep, following blindly...NO SIR. Ron Paul supporter THINK, and use their intellect for good (at least the ones I've met do). :)

Agree 100% with your post, and in particular the part I highlighted. Only difference might be I knew about Dr Paul before he began this run for the highest office and considered him one of the good ones.

I got orgasmic when he announced he was forming an exploratory committee :D

Jeff Flake is a good man as well. Pence is ok on some issues; same with Coburn.

For me fiscal conservatism is the most important. I believe economics and spending will be the downfall of this great nation as has been the case with all others in the past. If we the people can't stop the monster, it will eventually consume us :(

[Grandson of Liberty]

But if all that you need from him to vote for him is that his name "Ron Paul" has a nice ring to it then I support that as well.

I think that's just his nickname. Didn't you know that his full name is "Longshot Presidential Candidate Ron Paul"? At least, that's what they call him in all the papers and on TV. :rolleyes:
:)

[Thrashertm]

I got interested in Dr. Paul because of his anti-war stance, but was initially turned off by his stance on abortion and Israel. Now that I understand his message better, I have bought in fully, donated several times, and am an avid grass roots campaigner.

[donniedark0]

The way Ron Paul pulled me in is the same way I'm sure a lot of people were inspired to his message. When I first started reading up on politics in college, trying to determine where I stood on issues, I fell under Libertarian closer to moderate.

As I've educated myself further and years have passed, and I pulled farther to a truer Libertarian, the more I felt alienated from the general public on their philosophies of statist or big government ideologies. I thought I was in such a minority to never do much more than make a blip in the grand scheme of things. I always imagined this fictitious character that would be the saviour of Libertarian values to come into power and restore our government to it's rightful place/size. Those were the days I just stayed out of politics, I was disillusioned and apathetic, thinking that a person of principal and conviction exists only in my head.

Intro Ron Paul.

I felt like I've been living under a rock all these years, and here he was, his name splashed all over the internet. Everything changed for me. Ron Paul lit a fire in me. I've given probably more than I should've, but at the same time I couldn't imagine my money going to any better cause, including the f'ing IRS. It feels like whatever I could do to explain to people why he is SO important, why people should CARE about this time of strife in our country. On days it feels like we're in the echo chambers watching all the fools march off the plank, we couldn't be more sincere if we tried but they only hear, but don't listen. On other days, I see the growing support we continue to attract, and realise this is only the beginning of a movement. These concepts transcend political boundaries unlike any I've seen, especially when I hear people who have had no faith in any candidate now so committed to Ron Paul as to never cast their vote in anyone else's favor. People who, even if he doesn't win the primary nomination, will bring their fight to the national convention and write him in, that's how you know something big is brewing.

THAT is why I get it, and alot of other people do too.

[Wyurm]

I'm closer to anarchist than anything (and just for those who have heard that word abused, anarchy simply means no government. It does not mean psycho rioter. It means you govern yourself and are responsible for yourself). So, yes I do somewhat understand what you are asking, though I'm shady on why you are asking it.

[MooCowzRock]

Arguably, our Constitution was founded on the principle that we should only be collectivist to our need to protect our rights from being infringed by a majority, or another country. In every other aspect, individualism should be respected.

Full individualism is Anarchism, because any government is inherently collectivist to whatever degree the size of the government is.

Thats the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism. Both are very close together, its just that one claims that the only practical purpose of collectivism is to protect our liberty, the other doesnt believe collectivism is necessary for that protection.

I'm personally a Libertarian, because I believe without a Constitution or government, there is nothing that prevents a majority from imposing their will on the minority, and there is nothing that protects us from foreign invaders. Thats my own personal opinion, though.

[Wyurm]

What ever floats your boat and makes you want to be a RP supporter.

I personally agree with him on 100% of his issues, and on his platform completely.

But if all that you need from him to vote for him is that his name "Ron Paul" has a nice ring to it then I support that as well. You'll be way better in the long run without knowing it now.

I like this statement best. It really doesn't matter why only that they do support him.

[JMann]

Paul's views on individual liberty are what is most important to me. His views on foreign policy are very attractive to me. The simplicity of being against the war in Iraq like many of the Democrats doesn't interest me at all. Matter of fact I think if you keep the US current policy you have to get in these damn wars. Ron Paul isn't anti-war like many of the mindless Democrats that oppose the war simply because there is a Republican president. Ron Paul is very much pro-war if there is a need and war is determined necessary by the Congress. In other words Paul isn't simply a sandal clad minion.

[Minuteman2008]

I agree with Paul on nearly everything, but I'm not really a libertarian at all. More of an old fashioned conservative. I think some libertarians believe in open borders, which is insantity in my opinion because completely open borders would result in a socialist government being elected within a generation. I think a lot of libertarian ideas are great in theory, but disastrous in actual practice. But I think Paul walks a fine line between reality and ideology, and I find myself agreeing with him on nearly every policy, with the possible exception of free trade. He opposes globalist free trade agreements for different reasons than conservatives like Pat Buchanan for example. Paul (apparently) believes that these trade agreements aren't free enough, whereas other conservatives have different reasons such as the dangers of relying on other nations completely for basic necessities and the idea that the manufacturing base that won WWII is being completely dismantled. Though Paul obviously believes in sovereignty rather than submitting to an international authority, which puts him right in line with paleoconservatives.

Also, nobody is better when talking or writing about individual liberty than Ron Paul. That means a whole lot to almost all of us on this board, and is probably the most common theme here next to Paul's anti-war stance.

[nosebruise]

I have been on the forums for a good while now.

There is a select group of supporters that are here just because of the anti-war stance that just cannot wrap their heads around what Objectivism is vs Collectivism.

It really does astound me how many defend the Stateist mentality or laws.

Anyone else notice this?

it doesnt really matter.

people support their candidates for whatever reasons they see fit. obviously you support him, because, amond other things Objectivism is important to you.



some want him just because he wants to get us out of iraq.
others choose him as a candidate because they are worried about where we stand economically.

and maybe some people simply want a god damn honest person in office for once in a long, long time.


people have their own reasons and only have to support him for the reasons they see fit. they dont have to agree with him on every position. of course its usually not great to support a candidate whose foundation ideologies differ from yours... but there even comes to a point where issues are so strong with people that they simply want a candidate who is in line with those issues.

[JMann]

I agree with Paul on nearly everything, but I'm not really a libertarian at all. More of an old fashioned conservative. I think some libertarians believe in open borders, which is insantity in my opinion because completely open borders would result in a socialist government being elected within a generation. I think a lot of libertarian ideas are great in theory, but disastrous in actual practice. But I think Paul walks a fine line between reality and ideology, and I find myself agreeing with him on nearly every policy, with the possible exception of free trade. He opposes globalist free trade agreements for different reasons than conservatives like Pat Buchanan for example. Paul (apparently) believes that these trade agreements aren't free enough, whereas other conservatives have different reasons such as the dangers of relying on other nations completely for basic necessities and the idea that the manufacturing base that won WWII is being completely dismantled. Though Paul obviously believes in sovereignty rather than submitting to an international authority, which puts him right in line with paleoconservatives.

Also, nobody is better when talking or writing about individual liberty than Ron Paul. That means a whole lot to almost all of us on this board, and is probably the most common theme here next to Paul's anti-war stance.

Don't confuse Libertarians and libertarians. The big 'L'ibertarians are for the most part insane and border on anarchy. Small 'l'ibertarians are far more rational and willing to compromise and negotiate to get results. I don't know of any libertarians that support open borders and the very issue is why the "L" will never be worth a bucket of spit on the national level.

[hopeforamerica]

Don't confuse Libertarians and libertarians. The big 'L'ibertarians are for the most part insane and border on anarchy. Small 'l'ibertarians are far more rational and willing to compromise and negotiate to get results. I don't know of any libertarians that support open borders and the very issue is why the "L" will never be worth a bucket of spit on the national level.

Why in the heck would you use the word "insane."!!!!! Just because you don't agree with someone, does not make them insane. Or are you just used to that phrase because the media is trying to paint all of Ron Paul's supporters insane? Way to insult a HUGE support base for Ron Paul.

[Revolution9]

Why in the heck would you use the word "insane."!!!!! Just because you don't agree with someone, does not make them insane. Or are you just used to that phrase because the media is trying to paint all of Ron Paul's supporters insane? Way to insult a HUGE support base for Ron Paul.

Jmann. Two strikes this morning. Is he shilling or not.. Keeping count.

Best Regards
randy

[hopeforamerica]

Jmann. Two strikes this morning. Is he shilling or not.. Keeping count.

Best Regards
randy

ah ha!

[acptulsa]

We're trying to create a big tent here, and there's no reason why we can't.

Mostly, Dr. Paul's hardcore support has been the individualists, and individualists can have their way.

As for collectivists, why not welcome them? They won't spoil the barrel of apples! Fact is, Dr. Paul is fighting for states' rights. So, if citizens of a state want a collectivist society, let them! After all, there's an advantage to them doing it this way--the federal government is huge, corrupt, inefficient and nearly impossible to police. So, collectivism on the state level just makes more sense. Indeed, getting the federal monkey off their backs leaves them more resources to do it with!

We're trying to take back a whole nation here--and there's nothing to prevent us from including everyone, individualist and collectivist alike. That's why we aren't just one big morass, but fifty individual and varied States--United in common defense and liberty! Our advantage extends to everyone.

[Gimme Some Truth]

The only thing I disagree with Ron Paul on is his OPINION on abortion. I may be pro choice (aslong as it isnt federally funded- I dont believe people who find it abhorrent, morally, should be forced to pay for it) but I agree that Roe vs Wade is bad. I dont like the idea of a central government having that much power. I agree with Paul that it should be a state decision ... I just hope all states would allow abortion , whereas Im sure Paul would hope that all states would be against abortion. In the end tho , it isnt a big priority in my eyes.

Everything else Paul says I agree with completely. Tho, saying that, I agree with his policy on abortion ... so really, you could say that I agree with Paul 100%.

I dont care why someone supports Paul - just as long as they do . They definitely dont have to have the same ideas and philosophies as you or I , or Ron Paul . To demand that you have to be an individualist to be a Ron Paul supporter is quite a , erm... collectivist outlook :)

.

[robert4rp08]

I agree with Dr. Paul 99.9% because ....

"nothing is absolute" -Ron Paul

[JMann]

Why in the heck would you use the word "insane."!!!!! Just because you don't agree with someone, does not make them insane. Or are you just used to that phrase because the media is trying to paint all of Ron Paul's supporters insane? Way to insult a HUGE support base for Ron Paul.

Because, in my view someone that believes in the destruction of the United State's sovereignty is insane or should be charged with treason. An open border policy is border line treason and anyone that could support that position or a party that pushes that policy isn't stable. If not insane then anyone calling for the destruction of our sovereignty should be in the federal courts. Sanity is a legal term and if you are considered sane and support the destruction of the United States your are committing treason. Very simple really.

[Kregener]

It really does astound me how many defend the Stateist mentality or laws.

Anyone else notice this?

Abso-FRIGGIN-lutely...

[Minuteman2008]

Don't confuse Libertarians and libertarians. The big 'L'ibertarians are for the most part insane and border on anarchy. Small 'l'ibertarians are far more rational and willing to compromise and negotiate to get results. I don't know of any libertarians that support open borders and the very issue is why the "L" will never be worth a bucket of spit on the national level.

Yeah, I don't mean to insult any libertarians at all, and find myself agreeing with so-called paleolibertarians and small L libertarians on many issues.

But enough with the labels, we're all allies here in the struggle for individual liberty and constitutional government.

[Enzo]

I think the anti-war message is very objectivist.

The collectivist route is to support the "greater cause" of spilling American and Iraqi blood for oil.

[MooCowzRock]

I think the anti-war message is very objectivist.

The collectivist route is to support the "greater cause" of spilling American and Iraqi blood for oil.

Yet its just as collectivist to think that we all need to rally behind a war that is just and in the defense of our liberty.

Too many people just getting introduced to the idea of individualism, or just out of pure ignorance, such as the thread starter, really dont understand what exactly collecitivsm versus individualism is, and how it related to Dr Paul and Libertarianism/Conservatism...

[ForrestLayne]

But enough with the labels, we're all allies here in the struggle for individual liberty and constitutional government.

AMEN - what good does it do any of us to try to pigeon hole our beliefs into a label? Each and everyone one says " I am mostly such & such" MOSTLY being the optimum word.

Each person on this board has a different take on every issue. We take the sum of the whole platform and make a decision

If we start trying to classify or label RP supporters, we are going to split factions off and lose our common goal of getting the RP platform into the spotlight in our government.

[ThomasJ]

Yet its just as collectivist to think that we all need to rally behind a war that is just and in the defense of our liberty.

Too many people just getting introduced to the idea of individualism, or just out of pure ignorance, such as the thread starter, really dont understand what exactly collecitivsm versus individualism is, and how it related to Dr Paul and Libertarianism/Conservatism...


Yes thanks I haven't been flamed in a while I needed that.

Yes objectivism is usually anti-war. Only it is not really, because "A man cannot INITIATE the use of force." You can on the other hand give absolute destruction to those that start it.

As for the collectivists, I have seen many posts defending this or that. Like in the "Driving is a...." thread there was several posts defending mandatory insurance etc...

That is a collectivist mentality. That is just one example, that I have seen as of late. Lots of people on here just do not understand the fundamental problem with our Country.

[Ex Post Facto]

MooCowzRock lacks a reasoned approach when posting dissent to topics. Most of the threads I've seen him post in, he bashes the thread starter.

ThomasJ you are okay man.

Be nice, people.

[MooCowzRock]

MooCowzRock lacks a reasoned approach when posting dissent to topics. Most of the threads I've seen him post in, he bashes the thread starter.

ThomasJ you are okay man.

Be nice, people.

What?? Give at least two other examples. All I said was I didnt think he understood what exactly collectivism versus individualism was related to what Dr Paul and Libertarians follow.

This is not a reasoned approach??:

"Arguably, our Constitution was founded on the principle that we should only be collectivist to our need to protect our rights from being infringed by a majority, or another country. In every other aspect, individualism should be respected.

Full individualism is Anarchism, because any government is inherently collectivist to whatever degree the size of the government is.

Thats the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism. Both are very close together, its just that one claims that the only practical purpose of collectivism is to protect our liberty, the other doesnt believe collectivism is necessary for that protection.

I'm personally a Libertarian, because I believe without a Constitution or government, there is nothing that prevents a majority from imposing their will on the minority, and there is nothing that protects us from foreign invaders. Thats my own personal opinion, though."

[ThomasJ]

Full individualism is Anarchism, because any government is inherently collectivist to whatever degree the size of the government is.

Thats the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism. Both are very close together, its just that one claims that the only practical purpose of collectivism is to protect our liberty, the other doesnt believe collectivism is necessary for that protection.

I'm personally a Libertarian, because I believe without a Constitution or government, there is nothing that prevents a majority from imposing their will on the minority

1. Watch this. This is Xcowboy2's very well done videos for John Galt's speech.
This is the heart of the Objectivist Philosophy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0

2. Collectivism is the principle of sacrifice your own value for the needs of others. You can have a government that is not collectivist if taxes are voluntary. Or if government programs are private. The Pinkertons are a great example of a private enterprise taking the role of a government agency for a profit. They protected Lincoln from assassination (the US Army was doing his protection when he got shot.) They did go to far though later on when they had been hired by a private company to assault union workers. The free market did solve that problem though because the where not long lived after that.