A new site vision; a new era

[Natural Citizen]

Ron Paul introduces himself as the champion of the constitution. This ideal still exists within our guidelines which exist in support of our mission.

If somebody slashed my tires, I don't throw my car away. I fix it. And I put my watchdog in there with the windows down in case they get the notion to try it again.

And that's what those quotes mean.

The key point in your quotes is simple. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The constitution isn't the problem. It's the people who were left with the responsibility of defending it that are the problem.

Again, definition.

"More people are discovering that the system is all rigged, and that voting is just pacification for the voters and it really doesn’t count.” - Ron Paul



"Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified." - Ron Paul

[r3volution 3.0]

The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The constitution isn't the problem. It's the people who were left with the responsibility of defending it that are the problem.

Suppose I said that the problem with communism is that people don't behave selflessly. That statement would be true, but incomplete. The greater problem with communism is that it relies on people behaving selflessly (a decidedly unrealistic expectation). Similarly, though the failure of the republic can be attributed to the people not being sufficiently virtuous and moral, a more comprehensive explanation of our problems would be that it was unreasonable for the Founders to expect people to be virtuous and moral, and that a system which relies on them being so is inherently unworkable.

[Natural Citizen]

Well, if we read any of their thoughts on the nature of man, they were succinct in acknowledging the nature of man.

One immediate example which comes to mind are the words of Thomas Jefferson when he proclaimed in the Kentucky Resolutions that ''In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Washington, in his Farewell Addressed proclaimed that weaknesses of human nature in governmentare conducive to "love of power and proneness to abuse it"

So, they did acknowledge this error in the ways of men in power. And there are pages and pages of these same sentiments from their pens and mouths.

Now it is fair to submit the anology which you provide. Especially in looking at the current state of things as a consequence of an out of control government. But they can be countered by the fact that, yes, the founders did acknowledge the nature of man to be prone to abuse power. I ask if it is not reasonable to say that the means which were penned in order to secure our liberties against this proness to abuse power is workable. To that extent, I say yes. But this requires the support of wise men and society itself and the acceptance of the fact that, yes, it is out of control and that their Just Power needs to be checked.

We have the authority to check that Just Power. And we should be thankful that we do. The problem is that we aren't.

For the purpose of the thread itself I think that developing and securing an ideal vision moving forward is reasonable.

Suppose I said that the problem with communism is that people don't behave selflessly. That statement would be true, but incomplete. The greater problem with communism is that it relies on people behaving selflessly (a decidedly unrealistic expectation). Similarly, though the failure of the republic can be attributed to the people not being sufficiently virtuous and moral, a more comprehensive explanation of our problems would be that it was unreasonable for the Founders to expect people to be virtuous and moral, and that a system which relies on them being so is inherently unworkable.

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, if we read any of their thoughts on the nature of man, they were succinct in acknowledging the nature of man.

On immediate example which comes to mind are the words of Thomas Jefferson when he proclaimed in the Kentucky Resolutions that ''In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Washungton, in hisFarewell Addressed proclaimed that weaknesses of human nature in governmentare conducive to "love of power and proneness to abuse it"

So, they did acknowledge this error in the ways of men in power. And there are pages and pages of these same sentiments from their pens and mouths.

Now it is fair to submit the anology which you provide. But they can be countered by the fact that, yes, the founders did acknowledge the nature of man to be proneness to abuse power. I ask if it is not reasonable to say that the means which were penned in order to secure our liberties against this proness to abuse power is workable. To that extent, I say yes. But this requires the support of wise men and society itself.

I would never call the Founders dense or uneducated, to the contrary, but I would call them wishful thinkers. They appreciated the true, very imperfect, nature of man (as your quotes indicate) and yet still built a political system which they knew could only function if man acted contrary to his very imperfect nature. It's rather puzzling. As for the "chains of the Constitution," that takes us in circles. The Constitution is a piece of paper. It does not and cannot *do* anything. It is effective only insofar as *people* choose to enforce it. If people are virtuous, there is no need for a Constitution; if they aren't, there's no use in having one.

[Natural Citizen]

I would never call the Founders dense or uneducated, to the contrary, but I would call them wishful thinkers. They appreciated the true, very imperfect, nature of man (as your quotes indicate) and yet still built a political system which they knew could only function if man acted contrary to his very imperfect nature. It's rather puzzling. As for the "chains of the Constitution," that takes us in circles. The Constitution is a piece of paper. It does not and cannot *do* anything. It is effective only insofar as *people* choose to enforce it. If people are virtuous, there is no need for a Constitution; if they aren't, there's no use in having one.

I don't disagree. So I cannot debate the point. Nor will I attempt it.

Rev, I contend that only worthy men can be free men. So we have two choices. 1 - Do we raise the black flag and start slitting throats? or 2 - Do we make an attempt to work within the political system of which the American heritage is derived with reservation of option 1?

I'd like to avoid option 1. I'm geting old, Rev. And I cannot trust the youth.

[Natural Citizen]

I'll say something else. I had asked Bryan to mark my account closed and tear up my contract just because I found the forum to be an addiction that I simply couldn't bring myself to overcome more than any kind of applicable, functional, method to work toward any vision in synergy. The fact of the matter is that we have a lot of people that choose to exist here for no other reason than to be contrary to the site mission and to misrepresent the site mission and that's where I spend the majority of my time debating. Then they run back to their other forum or whatever and laugh about how they trashed our place and then plan on how to do so again in the future. I see no benefiit to wasting my time with that anymore given that there really are honest people out there interested in learning true liberarian, small government, principles as opposed to trashing them and redefining it to suit an indulgence. Though, he didn't give me the courtesy of a response.

Reason being is that you cannot move forward in synergy when you systematically disagree on a defined vision from within. In other words, a bunch of monkeys trying to hump a football with no referee. Respectfully. It just won't work.

I found it more practical (still do as things are) to use this board as an example of showing others elsewhere interested in libertarian things what not to do. To use the board as a means of demonstrating what is not liberarian. Unfortunately, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Now, if we could secure a site mission, I'd have a different outlook. And I'm willing to help with doing that.

An example of what is not helpful is when people who use our platform to advertise the notion of burning down federal buildings as a means of activism. They not only represent their own reckless view of what surmises a solution to problems, they represent me by their very presence. This is irresponsible. It's a liability to cause. Though, most of the time I think it's purposeful by the mere fact that they choose not to do that on their own respective sites. Unfortunately, this is popularly how we're defined. We're defined by the worst of the worst among us because we permit for their presence and we permit them to speak for us. We permit ourselves to be misrepresented.

Definition is necessary. Securing any ideal is also important, however. It's far more important actually. An that's where we fall short. We don't secure it.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't disagree. So I cannot debate the point. Nor will I attempt it.

Rev, I contend that only worthy men can be free men. So we have two choices. 1 - Do we raise the black flag and start slitting throats? or 2 - Do we make an attempt to work within the political system of which the American heritage is derived with reservation of option 1?

I'd like to avoid option 1. I'm geting old, Rev. And I cannot trust the youth.

I'm also definitely opposed to the black flag. And I'm 100% in favor of trying to work within the system as it exists (hence my support for Rand, for instance). But, at the same time, if liberty is to triumph in the long run, it is critical that we recognize the inherent flaws of the present system - its inherently illiberal tendencies - so that we can begin thinking about a better alternative. You and I almost certainly won't see an opportunity for bringing about a better system, but someone will, eventually. It's our job - as we work now within the present system - to build the intellectual foundation for those future generations. That's the proper strategy as I see it, anyway.

I'll say something else. I had asked Bryan to mark my account closed and tear up my contract just because I found the forum to be an addiction that I simply couldn't bring myself to overcome more than any kind of applicable, functional, method to work toward any vision in synergy. The fact of the matter is that we have a lot of people that choose to exist here for no other reason than to be contrary to the site mission and to misrepresent the site mission and that's where I spend the majority of my time debating. Then they run back to their other forum or whatever and laugh about how they trashed our place and then plan on how to do so again in the future. I see no benefiit to wasting my time with that anymore given that there really are honest people out there interested in learning true liberarian, small government, principles as opposed to trashing them and redefining it to suit an indulgence. Though, he didn't give me the courtesy of a response.

Reason being is that you cannot move forward in synergy when you systematically disagree on a defined vision from within. In other words, a bunch of monkeys trying to hump a football with no referee. Respectfully. It just won't work.

I found it more practical (still do as things are) to use this board as an example of showing others elsewhere interested in libertarian things what not to do. To use the board as a means of demonstrating what is not liberarian. Unfortunately, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Now, if we could secure a site mission, I'd have a different outlook. And I'm willing to help with doing that.

An example of what is not helpful is when people who use our platform to advertise the notion of burning down federal buildings as a means of activism. They not only represent their own reckless view of what surmises a solution to problems, they represent me by their very presence. This is irresponsible. It's a liability to cause. Though, most of the time I think it's purposeful by the mere fact that they choose not to do that on their own respective sites. Unfortunately, this is popularly how we're defined. We're defined by the worst of the worst among us because we permit for their presence and we permit them to speak for us. We permit ourselves to be misrepresented.

Definition is necessary. Securing any ideal is also important, however. It's far more important actually. An that's where we fall short. We don't secure it.

If you're referring to the "alt right" types who've infiltrated this site and the movement generally, I completely agree. Libertarians are never going to agree completely on everything, but we must draw a line, at some point, between libertarians and non-libertarians. Our ideological enemies are not nearly as "tolerant" as we are. They are taking advantage of our "tolerance" every day, on this forum and elsewhere.

But don't get too discouraged man.

Keep in mind that, whatever our organizational problems, however bad the political environment, we are in fact right.

[Swordsmyth]

I'll say something else. I had asked Bryan to mark my account closed and tear up my contract just because I found the forum to be an addiction that I simply couldn't bring myself to overcome more than any kind of applicable, functional, method to work toward any vision in synergy. The fact of the matter is that we have a lot of people that choose to exist here for no other reason than to be contrary to the site mission and to misrepresent the site mission and that's where I spend the majority of my time debating. Then they run back to their other forum or whatever and laugh about how they trashed our place and then plan on how to do so again in the future. I see no benefiit to wasting my time with that anymore given that there really are honest people out there interested in learning true liberarian, small government, principles as opposed to trashing them and redefining it to suit an indulgence. Though, he didn't give me the courtesy of a response.

Reason being is that you cannot move forward in synergy when you systematically disagree on a defined vision from within. In other words, a bunch of monkeys trying to hump a football with no referee. Respectfully. It just won't work.

I found it more practical (still do as things are) to use this board as an example of showing others elsewhere interested in libertarian things what not to do. To use the board as a means of demonstrating what is not liberarian. Unfortunately, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Now, if we could secure a site mission, I'd have a different outlook. And I'm willing to help with doing that.

An example of what is not helpful is when people who use our platform to advertise the notion of burning down federal buildings as a means of activism. They not only represent their own reckless view of what surmises a solution to problems, they represent me by their very presence. This is irresponsible. It's a liability to cause. Though, most of the time I think it's purposeful by the mere fact that they choose not to do that on their own respective sites. Unfortunately, this is popularly how we're defined. We're defined by the worst of the worst among us because we permit for their presence and we permit them to speak for us. We permit ourselves to be misrepresented.

Definition is necessary. Securing any ideal is also important, however. It's far more important actually. An that's where we fall short. We don't secure it.

Make whatever decision is best for you, but if you leave you will be missed.

[Natural Citizen]

Make whatever decision is best for you, but if you leave you will be missed.

Well, no, I'll never leave the cause itself. I'll never stop working in that regard. I appreciate your kinds words, though.

The realization sometimes presents itself, however, that one wastes valuable energy becoming preoccupied by those who signed a contract to work with you in synergy, yet choose...and make no mistake, it is a choice..to work against the defined function of our site and often times at the site's expense in terms of validity. Admittedly, however, I lack the self-control to not be bothered by it.


Guideline 6 comes to mind here...

6) Do not disrupt Mission-supporting activism efforts.

• Attempts to undermine the value of electoral politics or the legitimacy of the US constitution.

Now, I spend a great deal of my time debating these people who make it their mission to work against that.

It's a waste of my time and it's a waste of yours. It's noise. And it has become dominant noise, unfortunately. And there is no way that we're going to be able to educate in any functional manner if we have to fight our own in defense of our site mission in the process. What's worse, we can't be taken seriously by any passer-by because when we do try to work toward the site mission, we get some dolt posting a meme of a unicorn dragging his ass with rainbow colored feces for the simple fact that he disagrees with the constitution. When people see stuff like that, we don't get taken seriously as a whole. And we become misrepresented literally by troll tactics.

Until we can get a hold on stuff like that, really, the best thing to do is to take off and work elsewhere and consider coming back once the wrecking balls have been cleared. A site mission and any guidlines can never prove to be of any value unless there exists loyalty to them in synergy. By the simple fact that we agree to these terms when signing on yet many observably choose to act in a contrary, opposing, way, should indicate that we aren't doing a very good job at securing our own mission.

So, that's what I mean by that. Though, it does become addicting to the point that one ends up containing himself in no beneficial way.

Daniel had mentioned something recently that is very important and definitive of where we actually are at this point. It's about education. It's about frequency. That's key right now. Unfortunately, it's becoming a redundant chore, at least on RPF, because many of our supposed peers make it impossible. The namesake is more often misrepresented than represented. And we let them, unfortunately, by th very fact that libertarianism permits for them to be present and to publicly try to make asses out of people who, in accordance with the site mission, value electoral politics and the legitimacy of the US constitution through application as well as education.

[The Rebel Poet]

Well, no, I'll never leave the cause itself. I'll never stop working in that regard. I appreciate your kinds words, though.

The realization sometimes presents itself, however, that one wastes valuable energy becoming preoccupied by those who signed a contract to work with you in synergy, yet choose...and make no mistake, it is a choice..to work against the defined function of our site and often times at the site's expense in terms of validity. Admittedly, however, I lack the self-control to not be bothered by it.


Guideline 6 comes to mind here...

6) Do not disrupt Mission-supporting activism efforts.

• Attempts to undermine the value of electoral politics or the legitimacy of the US constitution.

Now, I spend a great deal of my time debating these people who make it their mission to work against that.

It's a waste of my time and it's a waste of yours. It's noise. And it has become dominant noise, unfortunately. And there is no way that we're going to be able to educate in any functional manner if we have to fight our own in defense of our site mission in the process. What's worse, we can't be taken seriously by any passer-by because when we do try to work toward the site mission, we get some dolt posting a meme of a unicorn dragging his ass with rainbow colored feces for the simple fact that he disagrees with the constitution. When people see stuff like that, we don't get taken seriously as a whole. And we become misrepresented literally by troll tactics.

Until we can get a hold on stuff like that, really, the best thing to do is to take off and work elsewhere and consider coming back once the wrecking balls have been cleared. A site mission and any guidlines can never prove to be of any value unless there exists loyalty to them in synergy. By the simple fact that we agree to these terms when signing on yet many observably choose to act in a contrary, opposing, way, should indicate that we aren't doing a very good job at securing our own mission.

So, that's what I mean by that. Though, it does become addicting to the point that one ends up containing himself in no beneficial way.

Daniel had mentioned something recently that is very important and definitive of where we actually are at this point. It's about education. It's about frequency. That's key right now. Unfortunately, it's becoming a redundant chore, at least on RPF, because many of our supposed peers make it impossible. The namesake is more often misrepresented than represented. And we let them, unfortunately, by th very fact that libertarianism permits for them to be present and to publicly try to make asses out of people who, in accordance with the site mission, value electoral politics and the legitimacy of the US constitution through application as well as education.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Natural Citizen again."

Between that segment of anarchists who don't want us to vote, and the few remaining alt-right trolls who derail threads, we need to work harder than ever. Don't give up.

[wizardwatson]

I should have my write up on Bryan's thing, together with a defined process, by the end of the weekend. Essentially, Bryan's idea for a "Wiki" is really just developing a process for consensus on a mission/platform/definition document. I'm essentially writing up a very simplified forum-based "wiki" workflow that doesn't require anything fancy, and is easy for everyone to understand.

It will be like the Fisher Price version of Roberts Rules of Order, only implemented on a forum, with "meeting minutes" and reports via a Google Sheet that I've created, that does some basic reporting. That's the abstract.

Won't go into details, since it will be a time waste since I'm only a few days out from showing the whole thing. Better to spend time finishing than responding to questions about "where I'm at." I've been working on it since Oct. 10th.

Wow, wiz. I just saw your post over in the Foundational Knowledgebase Subforum:

How to "Liberty Movement" - by wizardwatson

...and you actually got it done before the weekend was over. I would say I'm impressed, but after reading the material you wrote, I gotta say, that phrase just doesn't do it justice! You are a legend, my friend. I'm excited to see where this goes!

[wizardwatson]

Wow, wiz. I just saw your post over in the Foundational Knowledgebase Subforum:

How to "Liberty Movement" - by wizardwatson

...and you actually got it done before the weekend was over. I would say I'm impressed, but after reading the material you wrote, I gotta say, that phrase just doesn't do it justice! You are a legend, my friend. I'm excited to see where this goes!

Well, all credit to the Lord. I am nought but a humble servant. Thanks for the mention!