Added: 3 months ago
From: FR33AGENTS
Views: 2,561
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (34)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • After you look up "Voluntarism", look up "Volunteerism", which is what Ron Paul said. Stop screwing things up, with lies.

  • I floated back and forth between democrat and republican for years until I finally woke up and realize we're getting screwed by both parties. Ron Paul and liberalism, I will NEVER go back to "mainstream" politics. Hopefully Ron Paul's words will become mainstream politics again.

  • I am new to this discussion, and it seems to be about much more than this or that government policy or action....so, if anyone who feels like they can speak for voluntarism and Ron Paul's view, and would volunteer to answer some questions, please contact me so we can do it privately.

    Thanks, and Merry Christmas

  • I like how Ron is so quick to call Obama a dictator like Glen Beck was so quick to call him a racist. Where were these cry baby's when Bush was fucking up the world? I don't like Obama that much, but this crying on the right is a joke.I think Obama is trying to help but doesn't know what the people really want.End the drug war,end the wars and bring back our jobs.

  • @420captain Ron Paul has been talking about big government spending/wars for decades, your party has you deceived you into believing the progressive left cares about any of this. They are the same as the Neocon right/progressive rinos when it comes to increasing the size, scope, complexity and power of government. Your comparing Glen Beck and Ron Paul tells me that you really do not know much about either of them. Read up on Ron Paul you might be surprised that you like him.

  • @dblaker1 Whatever , you say tamato I say tomoto.I agree with Ron about some things. But Glen Beck is a dooshbag and always will be. Maybe Ron is best for the country,I don't know.I never said I was on the left,actually i have no political affiliation.I want who ever is best for the country and that's all.Time to end the drug War,that much I know.

  • @420captain Ron Paul was VERY critical of the Bush administration, particularly outspoken against the Iraq War, Pre-Emptive War & The Patriotic Act. Obama IS a dangerous president to have in office: Obama recently signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the military to arrest & detain Americans or anyone "suspected of terrorism" indefinitely without trial. This violates our Constitutional Right to due process under the law, and is an unnecessary violation of civil liberty.

  • @angryamicus And Bush was A "safe" president to have in office.What planet do you live on? I get it,your not a Bush fan or an Obama fan,fine. But The American people Elected Obama,the lesser of the evils.{Even though don't think Obama is evil, there is no question Bush is evil and stupid}.Racist white people shit there pants when Obama was elected,and have been doing everything they can to destroy him.It's a sick world we live in,sadly.Obama is our best hope right now,give him time.

  • @420captain I say "dangerous" meaning the attack on our Civil Liberty. Read the NDAA that Obama just signed into law: Military now has power to arrest/detain Americans indefinitely without trial. This is a lot more serious than his skin tone. It's time we give Ron Paul a chance to restore our Constitution & stop govt tyranny. We only have the illusion of two parties- both Dems & Repubs are controlled by corporations. Ron Paul is the only legit candidate who will defend liberty for everyone! :)

  • @angryamicus Let me say one other thing. Obama hasn't lived up to my expectations. But we have to give him a chance after what Bush did to this world.Can't you see that?

  • @420captain Obama has done everything he can to destroy himself, from sending more troops to the Middle East to making government bigger & our country poorer to taking away even more of our freedoms crapping on the constitution withthe bills he's signed into law w/no congress approval.No... NO I cannot give him a chance. I don't want to see another useless war.I don't want to see more of our freedoms taken away.I don't want to see the National Debt soar above $20Trillion Dollars. No

  • @BuddELuv I don't want any of those thing iether, But you presume a lot, don't you?

  • @420captain This is not a matter of presumption. This is a matter of public record of what Obama has done as president. More importantly, why do you support Obama? What specifically has he done that you think is more important than the many questionable and unconstitutional things he has done? We are way beyond "race" at this point. This will affect the liberty and future of all Americans - white or black.

  • @420captain Bush was just a puppet for global elitists & big business. They change the face, change the party, but the policy stays the same: same endless wars overseas, same drug wars, bail outs for the rich and the big banks, big spending, big prisons, less privacy, more taxes, inflation, restrictions & regulations = Same Big Government. I just told you about NDAA. That is a huge reason to mistrust Obama's loyalty to the Constitution, which he took an oath to uphold when he became president.

  • To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions. - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined intro

  • I really don't fucking get why people call us "crazy" for supporting voluntaryism. I mean is it that insane that we libertarians just apply the same basic moral concept (that is, don't do things to people's property or bodies against their consent because it is universally preferred not to have that done to you) to government?

  • Comment removed

  • Anybody who's bought any of his books knows he is highly influenced by Rothbard.

  • @CloverfieldMonster95 Yup, precisely why it irks to no end when gullible liberals who 'just found out' what libertarianism is after reading Jane Mayer's Aug.2010 expose on KOCHs,just in time for the hijacked TeaParty, call Ayn as RP's primary influence! LOL! Kochs are 1 of largest NPR/PBS donors!

    Predictably, liberals can't fathom political subfaction infighting outside themselves. All one needs to do is google "David Gordon & KOCHtopus." Most libertarians start w/Ayn, but truly BEGIN w/Murray!

  • Voluntarism and Voluntaryism aren't exactly the same thing. Voluntarism means volunteering (e.g. soup kitchen, etc). Voluntaryism is the idea that to be moral, human interactions must be voluntary (i.e. non-coerced); that agression is wrong.

    I think Paul endorses both of these ideas.

    Eldeecue, government "assistance" does far more harm than good. If these massive resources were freed up to help real charities -- like food pantries and soup kitchens -- assistance would be far more effective.

  • You _do_ know there's plenty of voluntarism going on right now, right?

    They're called Food Pantries and Soup Kitchens. I'd like to see exactly how it is that the churches and charities are equipped to take up the burden of combatting poverty and hunger in the absence of government assistance, particularly when they can't quite get the job done even now. Visit a soup kitchen sometime. : )

    You know you're inviting a French Revolution/Red October situation by doing this, right?

  • @Eldeecue You must be aware that the government creates a lot of poverty. The war on poverty was about as successful as the war on drugs - a total disaster. Without so many people made destitute by ill conceived government programs, and an abundance of cash in people's pockets, charities would be greatly benefited. Charities would be able to feed the much smaller numbers of poor. You are assuming a static system, where one big change does not affect the whole system.

  • @Eldeecue poverty was consistently declining up until the war on poverty was declared. The government is good at breaking your legs, handing you a crutch, and then saying "see, if it wasn't for the government, you would not be able to walk". - (paraphrasing Harry Brown IIRC)

  • @Wesker1982 Yup, I usually tell people, "How can you tell if Gvt is force? Because you risk getting MURDERED by them for resisting ANY of their arbitrary dictates, from something as mundane as getting ticketed for parking just two inches into a fire-hydrant zone, to antiwar protests, or resisting the IRS."

    There are ONLY 2 ways in which the Gvt be it Fed or State, interacts w/its EMPLOYERS, the Citizenry, when their own BOSSES resist their Color of Law dictates:

    1. Lawsuit

    2. SWAT-raid

    Choose

  • @RosenKrantz666

    Re: when their own BOSSES resist their Color of Law dictates:

    By boss, do you mean that every individual is their boss, or the majority acting together, to define rules for a stable and civil society.

    Never heard of someone being murdered about the fire hydrant. Did that person say they would not move when asked, and then fought the peace officers even posing a threat to them?

    Just curious as to how you protected both group and individuals at the same time.

  • @MrHroark "boss"=YOU as the employer of State-actors; in a Constitutional Republic construct, technically all "public servants" are employees of the citizenry, making you, legally speaking, their "boss."

    Now whether copTHUGS abide by their Constitutional oath is another matter, as their record of upholding the only oath they take upon commencing their duties, is frankly non-existent, in macro context.

    "Never heard of someone being murdered about the fire hydrant." Try it & find out.

  • @MrHroark Now, one may argue a cop's W2 form does not list YOUR name as his/her employer. But this is akin to delving what "We the People" mean. In legal context ONLY INDIVIDUALS have "rights." State only has what we GRANT it.

    So technically, any1 acting on behalf of the State which is supposedly govern by the consent of the governed(non-existent paradox, but for sake of discussion), which means they're suppose to exercise powers only EXPLICITLY DELEGATED by you via your reps in gvt.

  • @MrHroark If you want one of the best primers/treatises on the notion/concept of "Natural Rights," which our American Constitutional Republic construct/English Common Law derives from, please check out Frederic Bastiat's "The Law," and search "Natural Rights" at Mises org

  • "these guys are talking about repealing obamacare... i want to repeal the whole government!" -RP

  • Great job putting this together. Its very fluid.

  • i knew he was a rothbardian behind his constitutional veil

    he is an awesome man

  • @gosheking no doubt about it!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more