Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: As Ron Paul supporters...

  1. #1

    As Ron Paul supporters...

    Which should be put first, minarchism/anarchism or constitutionalism? If something goes against the Constitution but is completely consistent with making government smaller, as long as it doesn't violate the NAP, should we be in favor of it? Or does the Constitution rule all? Should we disband the Constitution?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    free markets first

    if we have truly free markets then minarchism/anarchism/constitutions won't matter

    every regulation, taxation, contraband scheme, licensing scheme, accreditation scheme, public job, public property, refugee program, entitlement, government contractor, patent scheme, copy write scheme, fiat currency scheme, et al needs to GTFO first.

    when the State, inc. is gone then we can talk about what is really left in need of governance

    As Ron Paul supporters we should FIRST and FOREMOST acquaint ourselves in austrian economics and other associated schools of economic theory. Every policy Ron ever put forward dovetails into his outlook on economics. Ron's foreign policy, domestic policy, immigration policy all root themselves in free market economic theory.
    Last edited by presence; 10-25-2016 at 11:12 AM.

    '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. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    You can always tell the Trumpets by their complete ignorance of liberty and the Constitution.

    Lobbying is a constitutional right. As per the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Lobbyists just petition government on behalf of their employers. They are not evil. On the other hand proposing a law that would effectively trample the right to petition and prohibiting people from speaking freely because of a job they held? That is certainly evil. You know what Jefferson had to say about people like that, right?

    From the Declaration of Independence:

    "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

    Violating the right to petition government is the characteristic of a tyrant and makes you unfit to lead a free people.
    so what would you say about this?

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse James View Post
    so what would you say about this?
    Lobbying is not the problem. Failure to obey the Constitution is the problem. If this government obeyed the Constitution, then lobbying would not be so darn lucrative in the first place.

  6. #5
    Constitutionalism, though it is so close to minarchism anyway. The constitution isn't perfect but has a lot of checks and balances designed to prevent the government from getting too powerful, the problem in most cases dosen't lie with them but the fact that they are not being used an enforced. Nearly everything the government does is unconstitutional, if we simply followed the constitution than it would dramatically reduce the size and scope of government in a fairly short amount of time.

    The hard part though is educating the public about this, they have become so dependent on the state that other options tends to frighten much of the general public. Simply put the constitution should be followed more consistently and more amendments should be added for clarification on certain matters as well addressing some flaws that are still present in the constitution to make it more consistent with its purpose of keeping the size and scope of government limited.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse James View Post
    Which should be put first, minarchism/anarchism or constitutionalism? If something goes against the Constitution but is completely consistent with making government smaller, as long as it doesn't violate the NAP, should we be in favor of it? Or does the Constitution rule all? Should we disband the Constitution?
    Anything that increases freedom should be looked upon as the Good.

    As to your first question, and assuming we have specified roles in governance, I would put minarchy first. That, of course, will never happen. Therefore, the practical solution, all else equal, is to live in proper accord with the Constitution to the degree that it is possible. I mention degree because of the glaring weaknesses of the document. No matter how expertly "interpreted", valid arguments against freedom can be raised where the Constitution is the base standard of judgment.

    For example, the Ninth Amendment (9A) pretty well recognizes and protects all human rights, including (perhaps especially) those of a negative nature. Yet Article 1 Section 8 enumerates a power in clear violation of 9A.

    Another example lies in the contradiction between 9A and 10A. Once again, the rights both negative and positive recognized by 9A are rendered effectively meaningless by 10A, which reserves ALL POWERS firstly to the "states" and secondarily to the people. Firstly, those powers are nowhere defined, rendering the wording recognizes license of the states to exercise ANY power. This is the only valid strict interpretation I can see - please offer another if you see one. Secondly, 10A makes reference to a non-existent entity, "the state". While the use of the term may have been as one of "art", such usage is pure folly. It may be argued that nobody foresaw the corruption to which the nation would fall in time, but it is weak on its best day. The framers were no babes in the woods. The wording of 10A is, IMO, very deliberate. It may not have been maliciously intended, but on the other hand it may well have been. Intention is irrelevant there; what counts is the practical aspect of the semantics there, and they are clear enough to leave the door well ajar for tyrants.

    These are but two examples of many that could be cited where the Constitution fails most abysmally. Even assuming the best of intentions by the architects, the document cuts no muster as the foundational specification for a free land. The power to tax alone virtually gaRONtees tyranny in time. Just note how A1S8C1 makes no mention of limits on the power to tax.

    QED.

    The AoC were superior but IMO still grossly deficient. If we are going to remain significantly as children in that we cannot be trusted to live anarchically over the long term, thereby necessitating a written corpus to be employed as the hammer by which all nails are kept in their places, it is my contention that one far exceeding that of our Constitution is required. If we assume the worst in the average man, a supposition that is likely to make the most inept gambler a wealthy man, then far greater specificity, completeness, correctness, and clarity are required. A constitution should be written in the simplest possible terms with as few adjectives as possible, preferably totaling zero, and should embody the whole of the law, as well as citing the principles upon which it bases its claims to authority. Anything less is folly.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse James View Post
    so what would you say about this?
    What is the problem? Petitioning government and freedom of speech and the liberty to work as you choose are not problems.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse James View Post
    Which should be put first, minarchism/anarchism or constitutionalism? If something goes against the Constitution but is completely consistent with making government smaller, as long as it doesn't violate the NAP, should we be in favor of it? Or does the Constitution rule all? Should we disband the Constitution?
    As a libertarian, liberty comes first, not the Constitution.

    The Constitution is valuable only insofar as it endorses liberty.

    That said, there's very little daylight between the two.

    e.g. a Constitutionalist would have no objection to the USPS, a libertarian would

    But, by and large, the two ideologies are simpatico.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-23-2012, 08:24 AM
  2. Replies: 71
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 11:04 PM
  3. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 11:24 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 11:42 PM
  5. New York Supporters - HQ request - Good Morning America Wants Ron Paul Supporters
    By OptionsTrader in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 09:17 PM

Posting Permissions

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