Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 148

Thread: Ron Paul and Private Courts

  1. #1

    Smile Ron Paul and Private Courts

    We have conclusive evidence that Ron Paul advocates the private production of all defense services. See:

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 288
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 255
    If we reflect on how security works in the real world, we discover a huge and important role for private enterprise, and we find that the vast government apparatus of "national security" does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties by regarding the entire citizenry as a threat. Private security does not threaten our civil liberties, but government-provided security does.
    In regards to what makes governance legitimate we have:

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 70
    Lysander Spooner carried this argument further. He believed that only a "few" consented (to the constitution). Therefore, the Constitution should not apply to those who did not give their personal consent to cede any personal liberty (power) to the state. This is an interesting argument, but it's not likely to make much headway at this stage in our history. Enforcing the Tenth Amendment is a big enough challenge to us for now.

    All of Spooner's writings are worthy of study.
    Ron Paul puts Let's Abolish Government at the end of this chapter as recommended work to study.

    This work of Spooner's includes No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, which debunks the social contract theory of government, it makes a strong case that the constitution has no legitimate authority. When Ron says "enforcing the Tenth Amendment is a big enough challenge to us for now." He advocates enforcing the Tenth Amendment when applied to the government now, as a stepping stone, but he purposefully says "for now", it is implying that he would eventually like to make Spooner's case. This is the "learning liberty is a marathon, not a sprint" theory applied.

    But maybe this still does not convince you. Maybe Ron Paul disagrees with Spooner, and recommends reading his very persuasive work just as a challenge to see if you can get through with out it changing your mind. I doubt it, though.

    So is there any proof, from Ron Paul himself, that he agrees with the case Spooner makes? Actually, there is!

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 126
    That authority (of government), gained by explicit consent of the people, should be strictly limited. Consenting to a greater role for government violates the moral defense of freedom.
    This is exactly what Spooner argues in No Treason. Government can only be legitimate if it has the explicit consent of those governed. This proves that Ron Paul does not advocate the social contract theory of government (implicit consent theory), and that he uses the Constitution only as a tool (he has said he prefers Voluntaryism compared to the Constitution). He advocates the Constitution as opposed to what we have now (just like all Voluntaryists), but he has clearly shown that he advocates explicit consent (the Constitution does not meet this standard) for any governance to be legitimate.

    Also see: In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written. - Ron Paul, End the Fed

    Ron Paul has publicly said on TV that all taxes are theft, plus: "If we as a nation continue to believe that that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed." in Liberty Defined. Taxes are usually justified with the social contract type arguments, etc. And it has been shown that Ron Paul rejects this position.

    Without a doubt, he has explicitly advocated positions that are in stark contrast to the minarchist position (private defense and private national defense). These positions alone are strong evidence that he is a pure Voluntaryist. The only possible claim one could make that he is not a Voluntaryist is that he wants a coercive monopoly for the court system. Even if this were true, he would be 2/3 Voluntaryist (voluntary personal defense and voluntary national defense), 1/3 minarchist (involuntary production of courts).

    Given the facts above, however, there is no basis to conclude that he advocates a coercive monopoly on the judicial system. It would not be logically consistent at all. Given his positions on private personal defense, private national defense, taxes, and his position that only explicit consent is justifiable criterion for governance, it does not follow that the courts are an exception to privatization. To conclude Ron Paul advocates the coercive production of the courts is to conclude that he is philosophically hypocritical (he would have to abandon his beliefs to advocate violence for court production).

    However, my evidence goes beyond just stating "because he advocates the private production of everything else he must advocates private courts as well". I can demonstrate why this conclusion is true.

    This is what I found in Liberty Defined on courts:

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 127
    A free people do not use force to mold person moral behavoir, but a free people do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners that arise spontaneously within civilization.
    Add this to what he said about explicit consent of the governed, and we have already shattered any notion that he might advocate an involuntary monopoly on courts. This is still does not conclude my case, however.

    There is one last final and most profound fact to consider. It goes back to the undeniable fact that Ron Paul advocates private personal and national defense. Once you accept the fact Ron Paul advocates private personal and national defense, it is impossible to advocate an involuntary monopoly on courts.

    The reason why this is impossible is because the monopolistic courts must rely on the equally monopolistic defense services to enforce their laws, their decisions, their jurisdiction, forcibly extract the funds necessary to function, etc. Without a legally enforced monopoly on defense, the courts automatically become voluntary because any decision they make must be voluntarily enforce by the private defense. Without the courts being under the same entity that provides defense, they have no way to collect the taxes necessary to function.

    If people voluntarily pay for the defense services to enforce the courts decision, the courts are by an extension of this act being funded voluntarily. The same market principles would apply. If consumers are not happy with particular courts, they would not provide the funding necessary to enforce their decisions because the enforcers are themselves funded privately.

    Thus:
    1. Ron Paul explicitly advocates private personal defense
    2. Ron Paul explicitly advocates private national defense
    3. Ron Paul explicitly views all taxation as theft (proven by 1. and 2. plus his agreements with Spooner)
    4. It is impossible to advocate the private production of all defense services while simultaneously advocating an involuntary monopoly on courts
    5.The strongest argument the minarchists had against Ron Paul being a Voluntaryist was the courts (for some reason they never used it?), but has been debunked.

    Therefore, any claim that Ron Paul is not a Voluntaryist is completely inconsistent given the facts available.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Nice write up. His approach seems to be a gradualist one towards Voluntaryism.
    -Molinarian-

  4. #3

    Default

    Scary stuff ... for sure. I don't need any more of the anarchists crap in my life. I need to rethink who I support for president.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Scary stuff ... for sure. I don't need any more of the anarchists crap in my life. I need to rethink who I support for president.
    Maybe you do. It seems you're so wedded to a concept that you're entirely immune to such calm, rational argumentation.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Scary stuff ... for sure. I don't need any more of the anarchists crap in my life. I need to rethink who I support for president.
    You use the forbidden word more than we do these days.
    -Molinarian-

  7. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Scary stuff ... for sure. I don't need any more of the anarchists crap in my life. I need to rethink who I support for president.
    Keep your head up Trav. The Anarchists are pushing their own agenda, not Ron Paul's. I have read your posts, and I believe I understand your position pretty well.

    Ron Paul is an advocate of Constitutional government.

    Anarchy will never work in a real world scenario. I have already debunked Conza and the others with this fact. They only want to talk about morals and ethics, which is fine and dandy but at the end of the day they will never see successful fruition of their goals. Anarchy is easily exploited and simply will not work.

    It is quite sad that the Anarchists have hijacked Ron's campaign for head of the state. But they too, will blow away in the wind when their distortions and blasphemies come to light.

  8. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by josh b View Post
    You use the forbidden word more than we do these days.
    Denial.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quality write up linking it all together and making a tight shut case. Democracy God that Failed, he also recommends reading. Anarcho-Capitalism throughout.
    I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard. ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:
    Ignore: Xerographica, newbitech, Travlyr

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wesker1982 View Post
    We have conclusive evidence that Ron Paul advocates the private production of all defense services. See:





    In regards to what makes governance legitimate we have:



    Ron Paul puts Let's Abolish Government at the end of this chapter as recommended work to study.

    This work of Spooner's includes No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, which debunks the social contract theory of government, it makes a strong case that the constitution has no legitimate authority. When Ron says "enforcing the Tenth Amendment is a big enough challenge to us for now." He advocates enforcing the Tenth Amendment when applied to the government now, as a stepping stone, but he purposefully says "for now", it is implying that he would eventually like to make Spooner's case. This is the "learning liberty is a marathon, not a sprint" theory applied.

    But maybe this still does not convince you. Maybe Ron Paul disagrees with Spooner, and recommends reading his very persuasive work just as a challenge to see if you can get through with out it changing your mind. I doubt it, though.

    So is there any proof, from Ron Paul himself, that he agrees with the case Spooner makes? Actually, there is!



    This is exactly what Spooner argues in No Treason. Government can only be legitimate if it has the explicit consent of those governed. This proves that Ron Paul does not advocate the social contract theory of government (implicit consent theory), and that he uses the Constitution only as a tool (he has said he prefers Voluntaryism compared to the Constitution). He advocates the Constitution as opposed to what we have now (just like all Voluntaryists), but he has clearly shown that he advocates explicit consent (the Constitution does not meet this standard) for any governance to be legitimate.

    Also see: In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written. - Ron Paul, End the Fed

    Ron Paul has publicly said on TV that all taxes are theft, plus: "If we as a nation continue to believe that that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed." in Liberty Defined. Taxes are usually justified with the social contract type arguments, etc. And it has been shown that Ron Paul rejects this position.

    Without a doubt, he has explicitly advocated positions that are in stark contrast to the minarchist position (private defense and private national defense). These positions alone are strong evidence that he is a pure Voluntaryist. The only possible claim one could make that he is not a Voluntaryist is that he wants a coercive monopoly for the court system. Even if this were true, he would be 2/3 Voluntaryist (voluntary personal defense and voluntary national defense), 1/3 minarchist (involuntary production of courts).

    Given the facts above, however, there is no basis to conclude that he advocates a coercive monopoly on the judicial system. It would not be logically consistent at all. Given his positions on private personal defense, private national defense, taxes, and his position that only explicit consent is justifiable criterion for governance, it does not follow that the courts are an exception to privatization. To conclude Ron Paul advocates the coercive production of the courts is to conclude that he is philosophically hypocritical (he would have to abandon his beliefs to advocate violence for court production).

    However, my evidence goes beyond just stating "because he advocates the private production of everything else he must advocates private courts as well". I can demonstrate why this conclusion is true.

    This is what I found in Liberty Defined on courts:



    Add this to what he said about explicit consent of the governed, and we have already shattered any notion that he might advocate an involuntary monopoly on courts. This is still does not conclude my case, however.

    There is one last final and most profound fact to consider. It goes back to the undeniable fact that Ron Paul advocates private personal and national defense. Once you accept the fact Ron Paul advocates private personal and national defense, it is impossible to advocate an involuntary monopoly on courts.

    The reason why this is impossible is because the monopolistic courts must rely on the equally monopolistic defense services to enforce their laws, their decisions, their jurisdiction, forcibly extract the funds necessary to function, etc. Without a legally enforced monopoly on defense, the courts automatically become voluntary because any decision they make must be voluntarily enforce by the private defense. Without the courts being under the same entity that provides defense, they have no way to collect the taxes necessary to function.

    If people voluntarily pay for the defense services to enforce the courts decision, the courts are by an extension of this act being funded voluntarily. The same market principles would apply. If consumers are not happy with particular courts, they would not provide the funding necessary to enforce their decisions because the enforcers are themselves funded privately.

    Thus:
    1. Ron Paul explicitly advocates private personal defense
    2. Ron Paul explicitly advocates private national defense
    3. Ron Paul explicitly views all taxation as theft (proven by 1. and 2. plus his agreements with Spooner)
    4. It is impossible to advocate the private production of all defense services while simultaneously advocating an involuntary monopoly on courts
    5.The strongest argument the minarchists had against Ron Paul being a Voluntaryist was the courts (for some reason they never used it?), but has been debunked.

    Therefore, any claim that Ron Paul is not a Voluntaryist is completely inconsistent given the facts available.
    QED
    Last edited by ClayTrainor; 08-13-2011 at 04:45 AM.
    "One of the great victories of the state, is that the word "Anarchy" terrifies people but, the word "State" does not" - Tom Woods

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Scary stuff ... for sure.
    Why?

    I don't need any more of the anarchists crap in my life.
    I don't know what this means.

    I need to rethink who I support for president.
    Why? Ron Paul is the only candidate that will stop the murder of innocents and go after the Federal Reserve. I am not sure who could compete with that, assuming you advocate liberty.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Scary stuff ... for sure. I don't need any more of the anarchists crap in my life. I need to rethink who I support for president.
    I'm with you, except I am supporting Ron Paul.

    Constitutional government>anarchy

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Ralston View Post
    Keep your head up Trav. The Anarchists are pushing their own agenda, not Ron Paul's. I have read your posts, and I believe I understand your position pretty well.

    Ron Paul is an advocate of Constitutional government.

    Anarchy will never work in a real world scenario. I have already debunked Conza and the others with this fact. They only want to talk about morals and ethics, which is fine and dandy but at the end of the day they will never see successful fruition of their goals. Anarchy is easily exploited and simply will not work.

    It is quite sad that the Anarchists have hijacked Ron's campaign for head of the state. But they too, will blow away in the wind when their distortions and blasphemies come to light.
    Anarchists have been around since about the 6th century BC. Constitutionalists couldn't keep their government in check for even a decade. I don't think anarchists are going away anytime soon.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 08-14-2011 at 01:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pro-Life Libertarian View Post

    Constitutional government>anarchy
    Constitutional government=tyranny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  15. #14

  16. #15

    Default

    I think this mini arguments against anarchy are kind of dumb. Does anyone really think we'll go from a tyranny straight to anarchy? I imagine we'd go to a minarchist society first then go to anarchy after people realize that competition in the courts/cops/military will have much better results.
    -Ancap-

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bwlibertyman View Post
    Does anyone really think we'll go from a tyranny straight to anarchy? I imagine we'd go to a minarchist society first then go to anarchy after people realize that competition in the courts/cops/military will have much better results.
    They continue to beat this straw man long after he is dead. Please, for the sake of his family, let this straw man rest in peace.

    You are right. The criteria for reaching (lasting) Minarchy is virtually identical to Voluntaryism. Once Minarchy is achieved, it will be impossible to claim that the very same people who achieved it are incapable of Voluntaryism.

    If Minarchy is achieved through a violent overthrow, without the population in general accepting libertarian principles, then it will inevitably fall (see: the present). But if it is achieved through peaceful means, through education and persuasion (which is the only means Ron Paul advocates), then this will be evidence that people overwhelmingly advocate libertarian philosophy. At this point, any possible objection to Voluntaryism is an instant contradiction.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor View Post
    Bump
    "One of the great victories of the state, is that the word "Anarchy" terrifies people but, the word "State" does not" - Tom Woods

  19. #18

    Default

    A worthy goal, but it will take a long time to get there.

    For now we have to work within the system that exists, like Ron Paul.

    Thanks for bumping this, I hadn't seen it.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  20. #19

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wesker1982 View Post
    We have conclusive evidence that Ron Paul advocates the private production of all defense services. See:
    Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 288
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    And Ron Paul goes on to say,
    "Airlines are a good example."
    You, Wesker, are the reason that publishers post in the front of the book,
    "All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher."
    Authors do not want people taking them out of context and claiming they said stuff they did not say. You, Wesker, are a pathetic liar.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  22. #21

    Default

    ^ rofl!
    I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard. ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:
    Ignore: Xerographica, newbitech, Travlyr

  23. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wesker1982 View Post
    They continue to beat this straw man long after he is dead. Please, for the sake of his family, let this straw man rest in peace.

    You are right.
    Well, well, well what do we have here? I just found myself a gem.

    First in this quote, the Anarchist crys foul .... errr fallacy. Next, he says "YOU ARE RIGHT"?????

    Ladies and gentleman, what we have here is direct evidence of how the Anarchists use "logical fallacy" claims to slither and slide out of becoming intellectually trapped. You see, there really is no such thing as a fallacy at all. In the quote here we have the Anarchist claiming Strawman Fallacy and the directly agreeing on the truth of the statement. This is just too good to be true.

    So the next time you pin an Anarchist to the wall with a rebuttal, and he uses his "get out of jail free" card ala "logical fallacy" be sure and remind him that he is being intellectually dishonest and he needs to man up and face the rebuttal at hand.

    Ralston out.

  24. #23

    Default

    The u.s. government has proven that it is incapable of upholding its end of the contract between free people and the governing body. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are not only suppose to be binding documents on the U.S. Government , they are contracts between the people and the governing body established by the people through the formation of a u.s. republic which centers around the constitution (a contract). The contract has been misinterpreted,reinterpreted to fit agendas and has been broken time and time again. Ron Paul is trying to get into the position in which the government can be bound to that contract once again and enable civil government to come back. If the U.S.Government has already disregarded the contract then why should I call them my government? If Ron Paul does not succeed in binding them to the oaths and to the contract between government and the people as written in the U.S. Constitution I consider the Republic dead.The Declaration of Independence set the foundation of a history of tyrannical usurping and it set the stage for the contract , the Articles of Confederation and then the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.Those unalienable rights exist in natural law between humans under Gods ordain of "love your neighbor as yourself" and the contract was established to recognize such law in establishing a governing body to protect individuals with that agreed upon endowment of liberty. We have an evil government that now does the opposite.
    Last edited by CaptainAmerica; 08-24-2011 at 02:19 AM.
    It was too weird to live, and too rare to die - hunter s. thompson .
    ..this is the darkest timeline..

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Ralston View Post
    First in this quote, the Anarchist crys foul .... errr fallacy. Next, he says "YOU ARE RIGHT"?????

    Ladies and gentleman, what we have here is direct evidence of how the Anarchists use "logical fallacy" claims to slither and slide out of becoming intellectually trapped. You see, there really is no such thing as a fallacy at all. In the quote here we have the Anarchist claiming Strawman Fallacy and the directly agreeing on the truth of the statement. This is just too good to be true..
    lol, your reading comprehension sucks.

    The underlined part of the post is not what he is claiming, he was asking if anyone seriously believes it. It is strawman that the statists use over and over. The post itself is not making this claim (that we will go from tyranny straight to freedom).

    Here it is again in case you can't figure out how to go back a couple of pages:

    Quote Originally Posted by bwlibertyman View Post
    I think this mini arguments against anarchy are kind of dumb. Does anyone really think we'll go from a tyranny straight to anarchy? I imagine we'd go to a minarchist society first then go to anarchy after people realize that competition in the courts/cops/military will have much better results.
    The answer to the underlined is NO. I was agreeing with this part:

    I imagine we'd go to a minarchist society first then go to anarchy after people realize that competition in the courts/cops/military will have much better results.

    The statement that we won't go from tyranny straight to freedom is not disputed. That is precisely why it is a strawman when it is used as an argument against us, it is an argument no one is making.

    Are you trying to promote Voluntaryism by doing such a poor job defending Statism? Thanks for the help, but I think we have it covered.

  26. #25

    Default

    So.... in the chat room:

    I responded to an individual who was saying "to donate more, more, more..."

    That it might be an idea to better donate your time to a liberty worthy cause, than simply ads.

    CaseyJones considered that "discouraging political activism".

    Which is completely dillusional.

    I responded that I was encouraging it, but in a more productive fashion. And that I'm not against political activism, and that he should go read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "What Must Be Done".

    I was then banned.

    Intellectual honesty?



    This bump is dedicated to CaseyJones.
    I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard. ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:
    Ignore: Xerographica, newbitech, Travlyr

  27. #26

    Default

    The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the States existence, for its monopoly of force depends on its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. - Murray Rothbard

    No monopoly on defense = no State. Interesting to see Rothbard pointing this out decades ago.

  28. #27

    Default

    edit:n/m
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 01-28-2012 at 12:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Authors do not want people taking them out of context and claiming they said stuff they did not say. You, Wesker, are a pathetic liar.
    Regardless of your position of the issue, it is legitimate to quote portions of a very large work to make a point (especially with footnotes and bibliography). Every scholarly work I've ever seen uses this. Pick up any journal on any subject (medicine, philosophy, etc), and you'll see the practice is universal. The OP includes page numbers for reference. I don't see anything dishonest here, unless you're too lazy to get the book. If you REALLY think the OP is wrong, do a peer review of it.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 01-28-2012 at 12:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  30. #29

    Default

    though i agree with general idea, not the time and place unless you want more media fodder to crucify Paul to the unawake masses.

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    though i agree with general idea, not the time and place unless you want more media fodder to crucify Paul to the unawake masses.
    I have thought about this and decided that if he didn't want people to know, he would not have published it. He must have known people would connect the dots. It is not like he is mysterious about it.

    Anyways, I think the media is more likely to pick up Liberty Defined and read what he says about private defense before they ever stumble across this hidden thread. Or watch the Adam Kokesh youtube video, or a youtube video where he says all taxation is theft. If the media wanted to attack this point, I think they would have already.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •