Yesterday, 03:50 PM
I only chimed in to remind certain people here on this thread that there are some of us who don't buy into this idea that Neo-Reactionary/Paleo philosophies are worth a crap, and also to remind those same people that Ron Paul, whose ideas this site was founded on, was not an amoralist, and would in no way condone these monarchist/nationalistic governmental systems/philosophies that people float around.
So on the surface, my comment wasn't meant to be insightful or "grasped" at all. It was more of a way of reminding people that Ron Paul is a Christian and wouldn't at all approve of all these half-baked philosophies. Just throwing some holy water at some of the demons lurking around here.
But since you responded...
We both posted a video, me of Ron Paul speaking more to the philosophical/theological roots of liberty, and you of Ron Paul broadly defining liberty in a very secular way, in relation to "not using force".
I think though, in the video you posted Ron is over-generalizing to that lady. People who say "NAP" really mean don't "initiate" force. And Ron I think is referring to "not using force", not so much in the NAP sense, but in the sense of not achieving political goals via the use of force. As to whether taxes are part of that unjust force, I would say they don't have to be, but pretty much are now at this point in our nation. If the taxes are constitutional, and the use of those revenues is for consitutionally delimited powers, then it doesn't necessarily have to be the case that "taxes are coercion" or otherwise unjust.