Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

[Travlyr]

Simplistic version:



Better version:



Part2, Part 3, Part4, Part5

In the first video, Adam & Ben get into a disagreement over who owns the apple. Eventually, they let Charlie make a law. Charlie makes law by man not law of the land. What Adam should have said is, "Sorry Charlie, this dispute is between Ben and me, stay out of it."

According to Hoppe, second video, first come first served. Whoever is first to use the property determines ownership. That makes sense. That is natural law.

It was Adam's apple to begin with. Here is what really happened.

Adam harvested the apples and then Ben gets up from his video game, goes outside, and steals the apple from Adam claiming that it is his tree. They let Charlie make law. Charlie correctly identified Adam as the owner, made a law, and then expected Ben to pay restitution determined by Charlie. Charlie is corruptible. What Adam didn't know was that Ben paid Charlie under the table to rule that two apples would be the judgement instead of the correct restitution of five apples. Adam got cheated. Screw that crap.

It would have been much smarter if Adam & Ben would have made an agreement beforehand by drawing a line in the sand and saying, "This land is your land and this land is my land." Then Adam can say, "I grow apples on my land. I tilled the soil, I planted the seed, I pruned the branches, watered, and fertilized the tree. I kept the predators away and harvested the fruit. The apples are mine would you like to buy one because they're not free? It is my tree on my land and here is my deed as agreed.

A simple social contract, laws of the land, rule of law, would have made the conflict much clearer. Then the arbitrator is not making stuff up as he goes along. The judge is simply determining who adhered to the established law, who did not, and basing his judgement accordingly.

[A Son of Liberty]

But it is true that anarchists are so perceived as violent, destructive, and liberal by the American public that to associate them in any meaningful way with the Ron Paul campaign is counterproductive and would be used to damage Ron Paul's political success by the media.

I respect that the owner of this site does not want anarchism discussed on the open forums. I have no interest in doing harm to the campaign, and generally when I speak about Ron, I don't associate him with my advocacy of statelessness.

Travlyr goes beyond wanting it to be disassociated with this site or the campaign. He goes to the point of being disingenuous.

And I've never heard Ron Paul refer to himself as an anarchist, nor advocate anarchy, so I can't help but think Ron Paul isn't looking to be associated with anarchism either.

I'm not here making the case that Ron is an "anarchist" or a voluntaryist, or anything. That's up to Ron. All I can say is that thanks to Ron in many, many significant ways, I now accept the philosophy of voluntaryism.

As for 'voluntaryanism' again I don't see the word itself being used by Ron Paul but his philosophical proclivities are definitely well along this path as I understand it, but to push this to the forefront of the campaign is again counterproductive to obtaining enough votes for him to win.

People can understand the idea of returning to a more limited, Constitutional government, but try to tell them they need no government and you've already lost their vote.

Yeah, I agree that is typically too deep a pool to go swimming in at first, for most.

But that doesn't change the objective truth of the philosophy. It's unassailable.

[WilliamC]

Heh, my bad. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist....I'm a pragmatarian. My goal isn't to get rid of government...my goal is for the scope of government to be determined by taxpayer's demands for public goods. See...Tax Choice - A Strategy for the Occupy Movement. That thread offers specific suggestions that would allow us to all work together....anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, libertarians, pragmatarians and supporters of the occupy movement.

Hey I'm for all the government you can get...without taxes that is.

Voluntary contributions and user fees are the ultimate goal, not whatever the taxpayer wants.

The taxpayer, bless our corrupt and evil souls, are what got us into this mess, along with the taxtakers.

But if we can agree that the Federal government should cut 1 trillion dollars from the next budget, end 5 departments, and slash the rest back to 2008 spending levels this year then that's a decent start yes?

[Xerographica]

Hey I'm for all the government you can get...without taxes that is.

Voluntary contributions and user fees are the ultimate goal, not whatever the taxpayer wants.

The taxpayer, bless our corrupt and evil souls, are what got us into this mess, along with the taxtakers.

But if we can agree that the Federal government should cut 1 trillion dollars from the next budget, end 5 departments, and slash the rest back to 2008 spending levels this year then that's a decent start yes?

A decent place to start is understanding the difference between conceit versus humility. Conceit is where one person...a president...or a committee...decides which 5 departments to end. However you spin it that would be socialism. On the other hand is humility. Humility is where 150 million taxpayers use their taxes to decide which 5 departments to end. Does this make sense?

If a government organization is truly unnecessary...then why would any taxpayers spend any of their own, individual, hard-earned taxes on that government organization? Do consumers behave this way? If you truly do not need/want an Ipod then would you use your hard-earned money to purchase an Ipod?

[WilliamC]

A decent place to start is understanding the difference between conceit versus humility.

Yes, anyone who thinks a government can spend money better than it's citizens is pretty conceited.

It takes a humble man to want to endure the rigors of public office not for personal gain but to try and reduced the power of the government he works for.

Conceit is where one person...a president...or a committee...decides which 5 departments to end. However you spin it that would be socialism.

That's an outright lie. Shrinking government /= socialism. Try again.

On the other hand is humility. Humility is where 150 million taxpayers use their taxes to decide which 5 departments to end.

That's another lie. 150 million taxpayers would be better served keeping their own money to begin with, not being forced to turn it over to a conceited government authority.

Does this make sense?

Probably not to communists those who wish to live off of other peoples work.

[Xerographica]

Xero: Conceit is where one person...a president...or a committee...decides which 5 departments to end. However you spin it that would be socialism.
WilliamC: That's an outright lie. Shrinking government /= socialism. Try again.

Saying that a committee can truly know which 5 departments to end is the exact same thing as saying that a committee can truly know which 5 departments to begin. Committees cannot pick losers anymore than they can pick winners.

Xero: On the other hand is humility. Humility is where 150 million taxpayers use their taxes to decide which 5 departments to end.
WilliamC: That's another lie. 150 million taxpayers would be better served keeping their own money to begin with, not being forced to turn it over to a conceited government authority.

You're saying that you know what's in the best interests of 150 million taxpayers? Why not just let them decide for themselves which government organizations they give their money to? It would probably help if you learned about the economic arguments for libertarianism...partial knowledge and opportunity costs.

[Conza88]

Xerograph's bs has been refuted countless times in the 30 odd threads he has created.

Why 30 threads? His bs gets refuted... so instead of admitting defeat, he starts a new thread.

Word of advice.. see my sig.

But by all means.. please do keep discussing whatever you want in this thread; thanks for the bumps. Cheers.

[Xerographica]

Xerograph's bs has been refuted countless times in the 30 odd threads he has created.

Why 30 threads? His bs gets refuted... so instead of admitting defeat, he starts a new thread.

Word of advice.. see my sig.

But by all means.. please do keep discussing whatever you want in this thread; thanks for the bumps. Cheers.

Classic Conza

[noneedtoaggress]

Xerograph's bs has been refuted countless times in the 30 odd threads he has created.

Why 30 threads? His bs gets refuted... so instead of admitting defeat, he starts a new thread.

Word of advice.. see my sig.

But by all means.. please do keep discussing whatever you want in this thread; thanks for the bumps. Cheers.

Seconded.

[WilliamC]

Seconded.

Ah yep.

[WilliamC]

You're saying that you know what's in the best interests of 150 million taxpayers?

Nope, which is why I don't want their money in the first place.

You do.

It's as simple as that.

[Xerographica]

Nope, which is why I don't want their money in the first place.

You do.

It's as simple as that.

You don't trust taxpayers to make the right decisions with their taxes.

I do.

It's a simple as that.

[RiseAgainst]

@WilliamC

It's not so much about anti-state versus minimal state, it's about RADICAL vs. status quo or non-radical. Murray sums it up beautifully as usual:

Originally published in The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1977.

I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don’t really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.


Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman’s amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.


The same impression shines through the writing, say, of political philosopher Eric Mack. Mack is an anarcho-capitalist who believes in individual rights; but there is no sense in his writings of any passionate hatred of the State, or, a fortiori, of any sense that the State is a plundering and bestial enemy.

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.


And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.


Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of "radical" is "conservative," where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.

To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists are extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people admire the work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman because they consider these men libertarian sympathizers and fellow-travelers. That they are, but this does not begin to comprehend their true importance. For throughout the writings of Royko and von Hoffman, as inconsistent as they undoubtedly are, there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the State, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which, in its genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of every syllogism and every lemma down to the "model" of competing courts.

Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous "abolitionism" vs. "gradualism" debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes "conservatism"), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the "intellectual cowardice" of failing to set forth "feasible" methods of getting "from here to there." Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.


It should be noted here that many of Milton’s most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money – are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.


His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.

And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement.

[WilliamC]

@WilliamC

It's not so much about anti-state versus minimal state, it's about RADICAL vs. status quo or non-radical. Murray sums it up beautifully as usual:

Yes, and I'm about as radical as you are likely to meet in most ways.

But there's also a dose of pragmatism in me as well, and I'm willing to work with those who want less government up until such time as what remains is enough to suit me. Any less then I'd have to get more involved to with like minded folks to create one, since I do believe that anarchy will always lead to violence which will lead to the strong ruling the weak, and some form of limited government seems less onerous to me than that.

But I also don't believe I'll ever be seeing this situation in my lifetime either, so I wonder about those who seem so stuck on it at the expense of making some progress in the direction of less Federal government, which in the USA is the most urgent problem.

edit: as far as State worship versus State hatred I tend towards the latter, but remain unconvinced that the complete absence of a State would lead to a better society. Indeed, I think the entire question sort of misses the point, that is that there is no where left on Earth to go to get away from the State, like there was in early US history. There is no frontier. Used to be if you didn't like the State you could pack up and move out West, but that era is past.

The best I can see is to fragment the power of the State into more local governments instead of a single Federal government, or worse a global government. If we can ever get to a true Republic system of competing State governments within a lose Union then maybe some of them will innovatively learn how to minimize themselves at the enrichment of their citizens, but the way the trend is now is the opposite.

[RiseAgainst]

Yes, and I'm about as radical as you are likely to meet in most ways.

But there's also a dose of pragmatism in me as well, and I'm willing to work with those who want less government up until such time as what remains is enough to suit me. Any less then I'd have to get more involved to with like minded folks to create one, since I do believe that anarchy will always lead to violence which will lead to the strong ruling the weak, and some form of limited government seems less onerous to me than that.

But I also don't believe I'll ever be seeing this situation in my lifetime either, so I wonder about those who seem so stuck on it at the expense of making some progress in the direction of less Federal government, which in the USA is the most urgent problem.

Then as Murray, and I, have said, you are absolutely my comrade. I will take a radical minimal stater over a non-radical anti-stater any day. My own summation of the idea is generally this:

If government is a scale from 0-10, where:

Today's government is 9; and my goal is 0; and your goal is 2

So long as your pursuit from 9-2 is as radical as my pursuit is 9-0, I will be hand in hand with you until 2.

IOW, if politicians offer you a compromise of 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or...I hope you will spit in their face with me (figuratively of course)

[helmuth_hubener]

from another thread:

Good reading to get behind RP's mindset on his role in politics and "natural resistance to the state".

http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

It's interesting the synthesis Ron made out of von Mises, Rothbard, and Read, as shown in the quote. He has such great respect for von Mises, yet ultimately he chooses the natural rights stance of Rothbard over the utilitarian stance of Mises. Also, he clearly shares Mises' practical skepticism of political action, which is kind of a middle road perhaps between Read's rejection of participating in politics and Rothbard's embracing of it. He said "well, I don't agree that it's unprincipled nor even necessarily counterproductive to participate, but I do understand that it will probably be hopeless." I've heard either Mrs. Paul or himself say that before he first ran for Congress, he anticipated sure defeat, reasoning something like "you can't compete with Santa Claus," a pithy restatement of Mises' assessment.

Yet, despite this he ran anyway. He ran even though he thought for sure he would lose. And not halfheartedly either, but with enough focus and energy that he proved both himself and Mises wrong! What does that mean? What kind of person does that?

By the way, newbitech (and others), this is the kind of actual discussion about actual ideas of Dr. Paul and their actual origins which I was saying might be worthwhile. Feel free to jump in!

[WilliamC]

Then as Murray, and I, have said, you are absolutely my comrade. I will take a radical minimal stater over a non-radical anti-stater any day. My own summation of the idea is generally this:

If government is a scale from 0-10, where:

Today's government is 9; and my goal is 0; and your goal is 2

So long as your pursuit from 9-2 is as radical as my pursuit is 9-0, I will be hand in hand with you until 2.

IOW, if politicians offer you a compromise of 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or...I hope you will spit in their face with me (figuratively of course)

See you at 2, then we can concentrate on where our differences are instead of what is in our common interests.

[RiseAgainst]

And I'm gonna have to give you an IOU on rep, wanted to rep the post with "Imagine" in it, such a beautiful song! But alas, I must spread rep around before I can give you anymore!

[Conza88]

It's interesting the synthesis Ron made out of von Mises, Rothbard, and Read, as shown in the quote. He has such great respect for von Mises, yet ultimately he chooses the natural rights stance of Rothbard over the utilitarian stance of Mises. Also, he clearly shares Mises' practical skepticism of political action, which is kind of a middle road perhaps between Read's rejection of participating in politics and Rothbard's embracing of it. He said "well, I don't agree that it's unprincipled nor even necessarily counterproductive to participate, but I do understand that it will probably be hopeless." I've heard either Mrs. Paul or himself say that before he first ran for Congress, he anticipated sure defeat, reasoning something like "you can't compete with Santa Claus," a pithy restatement of Mises' assessment.

Just a fyi, Mises was a "philosophical anarchist".[Not the left wing variety].

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. … However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.

By the way, newbitech (and others), this is the kind of actual discussion about actual ideas of Dr. Paul and their actual origins which I was saying might be worthwhile. Feel free to jump in!

I'd be surprised if they actually had anything worthwhile to offer.

[newbitech]

It's interesting the synthesis Ron made out of von Mises, Rothbard, and Read, as shown in the quote. He has such great respect for von Mises, yet ultimately he chooses the natural rights stance of Rothbard over the utilitarian stance of Mises. Also, he clearly shares Mises' practical skepticism of political action, which is kind of a middle road perhaps between Read's rejection of participating in politics and Rothbard's embracing of it. He said "well, I don't agree that it's unprincipled nor even necessarily counterproductive to participate, but I do understand that it will probably be hopeless." I've heard either Mrs. Paul or himself say that before he first ran for Congress, he anticipated sure defeat, reasoning something like "you can't compete with Santa Claus," a pithy restatement of Mises' assessment.

Yet, despite this he ran anyway. He ran even though he thought for sure he would lose. And not halfheartedly either, but with enough focus and energy that he proved both himself and Mises wrong! What does that mean? What kind of person does that?

By the way, newbitech (and others), this is the kind of actual discussion about actual ideas of Dr. Paul and their actual origins which I was saying might be worthwhile. Feel free to jump in!

What kind of man does things that eventually prove himself wrong, you ask? A man who understands self sacrifice.

[Travlyr]

On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
September 23, 2004

Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul

"The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.

The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.

Although the 19th Century generally was kind to the intent of the Constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign states. The Civil War profoundly changed the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.

Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post-Civil War period, it was not until the 20th Century that steady and significant erosion of the constitutional restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties, but foreign affairs as well.

We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Our leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty, and our republican form of government.

Today the pragmatism of the politicians, as they spend more than $2 trillion annually, creates legislative chaos. The vultures consume the carcass of liberty without remorse. On the contrary, we hear politicians brag incessantly about their ability to deliver benefits to their districts, thus qualifying themselves for automatic re-election.

The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty. It's not the Constitution that gives us our freedom, the Constitution is needed to keep the power seekers from usurping that freedom and to hold government in check.

But our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing, and regulating. The complacent electorate, who are led to believe their interests and needs are best cared for by a huge bureaucratic welfare state, convince themselves that enormous federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with another day.

The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain confidence in the benefits of liberty -- and demand it from their elected leaders -- Congress will act appropriately.

The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly, and return our nation to its proper republican origins. The results would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, and a work made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire.

No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside the restraints placed on government by the Constitution.

The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it's understandable that abuse occurs. But it shouldn't be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace and the Constitution loses all meaning.

Unfortunately that is where we are today. This nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document, taught as gospel in our government schools, must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document -- but they correctly made the process tedious, and thus difficult.

Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it will be difficult if not impossible to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.

I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever, and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve a partisan victory. The real question is will we once again accept the clear restraints placed on the power of the national government by the Constitution.

Obviously the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important "election" of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it's worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant Constitution with which we have been so blessed."

[helmuth_hubener]

What kind of man does things that eventually prove himself wrong, you ask? A man who understands self sacrifice.

Hmm, I know what you're saying, but let's pursue it further. What do you mean by self-sacrifice? What is this "self-sacrifice" you speak of?

[noneedtoaggress]

Hmm, I know what you're saying, but let's pursue it further. What do you mean by self-sacrifice? What is this "self-sacrifice" you speak of?

Pertinent:

Without Austrian economics, I would not have had my political
career. The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to
live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
prefer my personal freedom to coercion. Fortunately, I don’t need to
make a choice. Austrian economics upholds the market’s efficiency,
and that reinforces my overwhelming desire and right to be free.
If no adequate intellectual explanation existed as to the efficiency
of the free market, no political activism of any sort would be possible
for any pro-freedom person. Our position would only be a theoretical
pipe dream.

[A Son of Liberty]

to
live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
prefer my personal freedom to coercion.

THAT - right there - is the heart of it all. WE ARE BORN FREE, and no amount of efficiency nor utility can overrule that fundamental, basic, essential truth.

Voluntaryism is as observable, recognizable, and natural as water finding it's own elevation. It is as God (according to my belief) created man to live.

Thank you, Ron. You are the reason I have seen the light.

[noneedtoaggress]

THAT - right there - is the heart of it all. WE ARE BORN FREE, and no amount of efficiency nor utility can overrule that fundamental, basic, essential truth.

Voluntaryism is as observable, recognizable, and natural as water finding it's own elevation. It is as God (according to my belief) created man to live.

Thank you, Ron. You are the reason I have seen the light.

Precisely. I always wonder if Ron finds it uncomfortable when people look to him as some sort of a savior, when what he's really trying to tell people is a message of self-empowerment. There most certainly is a cult of personality surrounding him precisely because he does give people glimpses of liberty and they latch on to him as they begin to "see the light". But he obviously doesn't want to and doesn't profess to be "Dear Leader", he doesn't want to run your life, he wants to show you that you can run your own and that is precisely what liberty is all about. He emphasizes that it's about the ideas, not the man.

But, yeah, I'll be forever grateful for what he's shown me, and the manner in which he conducts himself. He is someone the world could learn so much from, especially when it comes to attitudes, tolerance, and behavior.

[A Son of Liberty]

Precisely. I always wonder if Ron finds it uncomfortable when people look to him as some sort of a savior, when what he's really trying to tell people is a message of self-empowerment. There most certainly is a cult of personality surrounding him precisely because he does give people glimpses of liberty and they latch on to him as they begin to "see the light". But he obviously doesn't want to and doesn't profess to be "Dear Leader", he doesn't want to run your life, he wants to show you that you can run your own and that is precisely what liberty is all about. He emphasizes that it's about the ideas, not the man.

But, yeah, I'll be forever grateful for what he's shown me, and the manner in which he conducts himself. He is someone the world could learn so much from, especially when it comes to attitudes, tolerance, and behavior.

Cheers.

Couldn't agree more - Ron has shown exposed me to the idea that I not only don't need him - I don't need anybody.

I've heard the concern about the cult-of-personality with Ron. My simple response has always been that if Ron would ever so much as step out of line with the ideals, I'd drop him like a dirty dish towel. No need to worry about that, of course.

[noneedtoaggress]

Cheers.

Couldn't agree more - Ron has shown exposed me to the idea that I not only don't need him - I don't need anybody.

I've heard the concern about the cult-of-personality with Ron. My simple response has always been that if Ron would ever so much as step out of line with the ideals, I'd drop him like a dirty dish towel. No need to worry about that, of course.

As far as a cult of personality goes, I'd say it also comes from the fact that he's a vehicle for changing the political system via the politically correct channels. He promotes change outside those channels (civil disobedience for instance), but most people see him as the only hope of changing the system via the system because that's what's considered socially acceptable and legitimate. And he's a diamond in a sea of garbage as far as that goes so that puts even more pressure on him as a "savior" figure.

My guess is that if he doesn't win, a lot of people are going to get even more disenfranchised by the political system (and of course there will always be a movement to work within it as well). Look how the blatantly the MSM has shown their true colors throughout his campaigns. More and more people turn to alternatives.

[Wesker1982]

We endorse the idea of voluntarism, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul

Now aside from the rest of the mountains of evidence, the odds would have to be close to 0% that a radical libertarian would use a word like Voluntarism accidentally without realizing the relationship the word has specifically with his radical philosophy. You would have to argue that when Ron Paul uses the word, he is totally ignorant of Voluntarism in specifically libertarian context. I know some people like to try, but that would be an argument impossible to make.

Or try to argue that he advocates the private production of all defense services, advocates the NAP from a Rothbardian viewpoint, endorses the ideas of Lysander Spooner.... but somehow is using Voluntarism to mean something other than what would be consistent with everything else. Yeah right.

Quote from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekjnCtR_O0Q

To expand on this point a bit...

I was reading Man, Economy, and State in the bathroom (what else would you do there?), and came across:

For if someone contends that the majority in Country X should govern that country, then it could be argued with equal validity that the majority of a certain district within Country X should be allowed to govern itself and secede from the larger country, and this subdividing process can logically proceed down to the village block, the apartment house, and, finally, each individual, thus marking the end of all democratic government through reduction to individual self-government.

Why is this important? Because some people here pretend that in a Rothbardian or radical libertarian context, self-government might actually mean something besides individual secession (thus Voluntaryism).

What we have here is a clear explanation of what exactly self-governance is to someone speaking from a Rothbardian influence. It is secession down to the individual level, i.e. there is no monopoly imposed by force.

So given that Ron Paul repeatedly points people to the work of Rothbard, and given that Ron is highly influenced by Rothbard, and given that this is probably the first person who exposed Ron Paul to the concept of self-governance...

The odds would have to be close to 0% that a radical libertarian would use a word like self-governance accidentally without realizing the relationship the word has specifically with his radical and Rothbardian influenced philosophy. You would have to argue that when Ron Paul uses the word, he is totally ignorant of self-governance in specifically Rotbardian context.

You would have to argue that Ron Paul leads you to Rothbard, just to intentionally confuse you with a phrase such as self-governance.

Of course, as this thread and the other one prove, this is only a fraction of the evidence to support the claim that Ron Paul is, in any meaningful modern day definition of the term, a Voluntaryist.

[newbitech]

Hmm, I know what you're saying, but let's pursue it further. What do you mean by self-sacrifice? What is this "self-sacrifice" you speak of?

Giving up something you want so others can get what they want. Here is an interesting question. Does Ron Paul want to be a politician? I'd say, not really. However, I think he is a politician out of self sacrifice. Other people believe in him and want his personality and character to draw attention and possibly move things in their own interest. Out of self sacrifice because he cares for those people and because he believes in those people, regardless if he completely agrees with their cause, he does so. Of course his own interests are also served, indirectly, but he can also use his position and clout that he gains by his self sacrifice to serve his own interest and causes. So there doesn't have to be 100% agreement and lock step movement among his family and friends. There does have to be the understanding that Ron Paul is willing to give up his own interest for the people he cares about. It is the art of building relationships and the fundamental principle is self sacrifice.

When we practice self sacrifice and surround ourselves with others who believe in and act on this principle, the relationships cannot be penetrated from outside forces, violent or not. This web of relationships forms the family and the tribe and cannot exist with out each person acting out of self sacrifice. It is not even necessary to understand that you are giving up something you want so that others can benefit. It only requires the action to form the relationships.

Ron Paul opens up his life to relationship building on massive scale. I believe this is because at his core he finds his liberty in his ability to serve the needs and wants of others, again requiring self sacrifice. Yes he was born free. He was also born with a purpose in life. I believe Ron Paul finds his purpose in the happiness of those around him. I believe he is motivated by seeing everyone happy and free to live their lives how they please. I believe it is not even necessary for Ron Paul to put his freedom first. I believe he puts the freedom and happiness of his relationships first. I believe his happiness and his confirmation of freedom comes from seeing those around him free and happy.

Self sacrifice is at the core of any man who will take on a challenge or handle adversity for the sake of helping his family and friends achieve their goals before he realizes his own. In fact, any man who practices self sacrifice on a daily basis understands that most of the challenges and adversity he takes on will probably be unsuccessful, but actually being a part of doing something about another human beings plights regardless of the outcome is far more rewarding for the man who practices self sacrifice than being successful in everything he does. This is because compassion is a close neighbor of self sacrifice. The fact that a person who stands with someone who is suffering against all odds and put themselves in a position to suffer even when they don't have to brings happiness and freedom in the mind and spirit. It is what unifies us as human beings. It's message is fundamental. It is why I believe human beings are able to accomplish great feats against all odds.

Simply put, self sacrifice is the good side of human nature. When embraced, it brings out the best in all of us.

[newbitech]

just a quick follow up. I am reading this now. Here is the chapter that talks about self sacrifice. Maybe Ron Paul wasn't "influenced" by this person (never heard Ron Paul mention his name), but ideas are what matter according Ron Paul. Not really the "people" who bring them (aka politicians). So maybe you have never heard of George Herbert Palmer, but that doesn't mean the idea and importance of self sacrifice are foreign to Ron Paul.

It is self-sacrifice that calls forth from all mankind, as nothing else does, the distinctively moral response of reverence. Intelligence, skill, beauty, learning–we admire them all; but when we see an act of self-sacrifice, however small, an awe falls on us; we bow our heads, fearful that we might not have been capable of anything so glorious. We thus acknowledge self-sacrifice to be the very culmination of the moral life. He who understand it has comprehended all righteousness, human and divine.

http://www.authorama.com/nature-of-goodness-7.html