the error of libertarianism lies not in championing liberty, but in championing liberty to the exclusion of all other values. Libertarians hold that individual liberty should never be sacrificed in the pursuit of other values or causes. Compassion, justice, civic responsibility, honesty, decency, humility, respect, and even survival of the poor, weak, and vulnerable -- all are to take a back seat.
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
One cannot make a statement such as,"The founders were libertarians," and claim this is an objective view of history. This is exactly what I don't like about Ron Paul. He makes factually incorrect politically motivated claims. The same is true with the MLK Jr. reference. A bus boycott in the 1950s-60s south would work, because blacks were economically disadvantaged. They had to ride the bus. Even if there were no laws segregating businesses like restaurants, blacks still wouldn't get in the door
Actually the problem is the founding fathers were not JUST libertarians.
They are also very liberal in that they want everyone to have equality. They wanted life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all in the U.S. However how can we say we want equality for all when we let our own citizens dies when insurance companies conduct malpractice and deny treatment? Are sick people happy?
Founding fathers were Liberal Libertarians and not Conservative Libertarians.
@Neosaigo "They are also very liberal in that they want everyone to have equality"
Well actually that is what libertarian means. Libertarianism comes from the word liberty which basically means freedom, and with freedom comes equality. Liberalism is also based on the same word. Classical Liberalism would be consider libertarianism today.
So saying "Liberal Libertarian" is more of a correlation seeing how they essentially mean the same thing. Same can be said about "Conservative Libertarian."
@newart2004 Geez, I hope not. You do understand that Ron Paul is full of sh*t in this video. A blatant and politically motivated falsification of American history. The founders were all libertarians? The difference in ideologies were far greater than the narrow slice of political ideology that exists today. Besides, libertarians are always quoting Thomas Jefferson on liberty. We should listen to a man who owned other human beings when it comes to liberty... yeah right.
@jjevans2009 You really have no idea what your talking about do you? If you took the time and studied the founding fathers you would see that they are more inline with the libertarians of today, especially the antifederalists. They believed the only power government had was the power in the U.S. Constitution, which is the core belief of American libertarians.
@newart2004 Your reply is not accurate. First, the original document that was submitted at the Constututional Convention gave the federal government far more power than some states wanted. The "small states" proposal was essentially the Articles of Confederation, which they were there to fix, so a compromise was made. To act as though everyone agreed on the document is to deny history. John Adams was anything but a libertarian, so to claim he or Washington, Jay, or Hamilton were... cont
@jjevans2009 First off I meant to put Democratic-Republican Party not antifederalist, that's my mistake. Anyways I never act as though the founders agreed on everything. Of course they had difference in ideologies. However, even the Federalist, who were loose constructionist, would not approve most of the government today. So yes that would put them on the libertarian side. So the founding fathers as a whole were essentially libertarian.
Also not everything in American politics is centered around race, that's absurd. The only kind of people who believe that are racist. Now there have been times throughout history that politics revolved around race, but not all the time. You are probably on of those people who thinks anyone who opposes Obama is most likely a racist... right?
@newart2004 That's just like a YouTube intellectual. "You're probably..." You do not have enough knowledge of American history or politics to debate my point.
@jjevans2009 Yawn... OK whatever helps you sleep at night. Here I was thinking you actually knew what your were talking about, but just like most people on the internet all you have is talking points. How silly of me.
@newart2004 What? First, you have already commented that you believe I do not know what I am "talking" about, and the reply I recently posted was in reference to your assumptions about my views on race and Obama. You're a hypocrite. It's fine for you to leave comments based on your ignorant assumptions, but when I use factual information to show you that your views are flawed, you just hurl more baseless accusations. Instead of buying political ideology without question, try thinking.
@jjevans2009 Hmm. When did I talk about my political ideology? Besides when I stated that I support Ron Paul. And I'm sorry if my race comment offended you, but 90% of anti-Ron Paul people on YouTube tend to have that belief. Also I stand by what I said, though you did have some good points on the founding father issue. However you're mistaken. To say that the Democrat-Republican party weren't libertarians shows your lack of knowledge about the libertarian ideology.
That goes with saying that the federalist party wasn't more inline with libertarians. Sure they were loose constructionist, but no where near what the modern Democrat and Republican parties are today. So yes, as a whole the founding fathers were libertarians. Yes they had some differences, but just like libertarians today have differences, doesn't change they fact that they are libertarian.
@newart2004 You have no clue. Like most politically illiterate Americans you attach your political beliefs to "the founders" to validate your views. To say that "the founders" were all Libertarians is absurd and ignorant. You have no idea who I am and yet you question my knowledge. I obviously know much more about American history and politics than someone such as yourself who displays such an infantile understanding of the issues. Plain and simple: you and Ron Paul are wrong. Grow up.
@newart2004 You forgot? I check my stupid YouTube account after 3 1/2 weeks and read your pathetic replies, and now it's "Believe what you want." Do you want to know why America is being flushed down the toilet? Look in the mirror moron. "Uh duh the founders were all Libertarians uh duh." How can you be so f*cking stupid? Seriously, I would like to know. How can someone have such an unrealistic view? You and people like you are f*cking everything up for everyone else.
@jjevans2009 I'm sorry that I don't feel like debating a retard who hasn't brought up any facts in his last two post, just insults. I'm sorry that my life doesn't revolved around YouTube and can remember every little pointless debate.
By they way, America is screwed because of arrogant assholes like you who can't accept other peoples views on pointless matters. Maybe when you move out of your mom's basement and have a real understanding of the world, you might know where I am coming from.
@newart2004 Obviously your life does revolve around YouTube. "Uh duh Maybe when you move out of your mom's basement and have a real understanding of the world uh duh." Gee that has never before been posted on YouTube. A real understanding of the world? You believe this fairytale bullshit that a career politician feeds you. The Constitution was a compromise because the men ratifying it had drastically different political views. That is reality not "everyone was a Libertarian." Now f*ck off.
@jjevans2009 Oh man I didn't realize you were a kid, or at least have the mentality of one. Which explains why you have nothing but insults to debate your point. Whatever you're boring me.
@newart2004 Really? Nothing but insults? If I'm a kid and you're a grown person than you are amazingly stupid. You just throw tired ass insults like, "Maybe when you move out of your mom's basement and have a real understanding of the world," meanwhile displaying a complete lack of knowledge and a complete lack of ability to think critically. You are a moron and all one has to do to realize this is read your idiotic comments. You cannot accept that you are wrong and should shut the f*ck up.
@newart2004 libertarians is absurd. Ron Paul is politically opposed to their ideology. Secondly, politics in American have always centered on race. You saying I do not have an idea is ridiculous. I've obviously studied history much more than you. Look at your anti federalists claim. In fact, the federalist papers were a pitch in support of ratifying the Constitution. Anti federalists opposed the Constitution. Geez, this is high school level history. Leave it to an ideologue to twist history.
@jjevans2009 As for your slavery comment, you can't apply the social morals of today to the morals of then. If you stick to that logic then you wouldn't like any historical figure. Even Abraham Lincoln, he referred to black people as "negros," which we see as wrong now and days. However, most people with actual thought realizes this and don't make silly arguments such as the one you made. So stop looking at everything through racist eyes, and grow up.
To all those bashing the Founding Fathers for being slave owners. I BET YOU ANYTHING that you voted Democrat and will always do so based upon 'entitlement' and how the government bing in your life is a 'good thing.' You people wanna bash one group while FAILING to recognize a couple things. A.) MLK JR - REPUBLICAN. B.) KKK - STARTED BY DEMS C.) JIM CROW - ENFORCED BY DEMS. D.) YOU ARE ALL PAWNS AND MEAN NOTHING TO THE DEM PARTY BUT A VOTE!
@demopublic Very interesting and good post. As far as I am concerned, anyone who votes JUST FOR A PARTY is a sheep and a fool. Great men like Dr. Paul vote on the issues and for liberty.
@TheRelentlessRT MLK was indeed a GOPer. Feel free to look it up. I agree w/ it being sheepish and foolish to vote just for a party. I have been backing Ron Paul since 08 and will continue to do so. :)
@demopublic You're not looking at the time MLK Jr was alive. The south was Democratic until the late 1960s because of Republican Re Construction. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until Johnson signed the Civil Rights legislation that Ron Paul believes wasn't needed. In 1968 MLK supporters were also supporters of Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, both Democrats. You're comparing modern Democrats with Dixiecrats. Your statement is as biased as Ron Paul's.
The comments in this blog clearly indicate that a great many people misunderstand the idea of liberty - it does not mean that everybody gets to do anything they like - but that your ability to do so is limited by infriging on the free choice of others. Does that mean that you can run a white only lunch counter? Yes, you have the right to be an idiot - just as anyone who disagrees has the right to boycott that same racist business. Liberty is noting more than freedom of choice in your relations.
@zombiefitnezz next they will pass laws forcing Asians to smile at Mexican strangers, or high school students to not throw paper airplanes in class. Why draw any line? Force Women only organizations to allow men to join. Government has no business interjecting in business, only to protect the nation from foreign attack and budget national funds carefully and responsibly. They fail miserably at those two things.. why allow them any more power?
@zombiefitnezz why be a cliche angry cussing YouTube poster? Why not peacefully discuss an issue? Especially if your intention is to enlighten and teach others?
If you give the government power to dictate how any business runs you are meddling in a negative way with the economy. Any business shunning blacks will be all over the news and they would fear for their lives because the community would chase them into a dark alley with pitchforks and torches. ... oh and they would lose tons of customers.
Ron Paul makes some great points as always but he's very wrong about his last point, plenty of businesses would, and still do, discriminate, as evidenced by the recent business that that refused to serve TSA workers. Now one can argue that it should be their right to discriminate but to pretend that the marketplace will eliminate discrimination on its own is either stupid or dishonest...
(cont'd)...I'm a transgender woman and I find it somewhat difficult enough as it is to find employment even with British Columbia's comprehensive anti-discrimination laws because a lot of people just don't want somebody like me anywhere near them and many employers worry that I will scare their customers off, etc. There is already a huge problem of trans people turning to sex work because they can't find any other work and so I think anti-discrimination laws are necessary to protect minorities.
The Founding Fathers were not Libertarian like Ron Paul. Libertarian in 1780 is totally different than Libertarianism of the 2000s. Mercantalism as an issue alone makes the discussion absurdest. Modern Libertarianism is an abomination.
@youngbuck189 quit trying to get people to watch your shitty video with nothing factual about libertarians or ayn rand, no one takes a dread lock seriously anyways
you know what i don't understand. why are libertarians usually religious. I mean, libertarians are like atheists in the 1900s. correct but shunned.
people's rationality only goes so far i guess... they get to the bit where they realize (correctly) that there is no god. why can't they stop inserting government to fix things they believe the free-market cannot fix.
It is like calling for god every time we think evolution doesn't work. except government actually comes and fucks things up :(
@TheAttackRat I'm Libertarian, and I'm not religious. Most Libertarians I know aren't religious either. It might be where your from lol. But yeah, as far as religion and libertarianism is concerned (like Ron Paul), they don't expect or advocate that the government should make religious opinion law (as opposed to religious people in every other party, especially the Republican party and the so-called "Constitution" party).
Also schools sugar coat the mass murders of natives, to drive them off land that they lived on for centures, isn't that an exploit which should be addressed in schools correctly, because by lying we say its okay even though we know it was wrong. Exploitation is an instinct, because instigation against a person or persons is a kind of exploitation, who doesn't instigate to hurt someone to gain a benefit?
It must be other schools who sugar coat it, because my school definitely emphasizes the fact that civilizations were destroyed to make way for European colonization.
Obviously seizing the land and life of others violates the concept of private property.
You have to admit it is an instinct, sometimes we see it done to others and we do nothing, isn't that saying that its ok? When we stay quiet and watch it happen? When you buy products made in china, mexico, thailand, etc.. etc.. Hmmmm. so many exploits, millions quiet, to me it looks like its okay. Killing is punished because we have appalled ppl who want justice done, including a system with lawyers ready to seek punishment for the worng doers.
@richrnndz2 instinct? are u all still not clear ok i was being picky my bad coz instinct is not the right word expoiting is learned behaviour thus not an instinct instincts are natural pycology tell us this but maybe im just being to picky an u do bring up sum good points it is everyway
To state that our founding were libertarians, goes against everything they did. Down to creating a currency system and taxation system. I don't defend government, because I do acknowledge that it sometimes acts incompetent. But we can't forget the simple fact that we are human, mysterious, complex creatures with many contradictions. So the question is, do we cease to be humans with or without government? With our basic instinct to exploit each other?
To state that our founding were libertarians, goes against everything they did. Down to creating a currency system and taxation system. I don't defend government, because I do acknowledge that it sometimes acts incompetent. But we can't forget the simple fact that we are human, mysterious, complex creatures with many contradictions. So the question is, do we cease to be humans with or without government? With our basic instinct to exploit each other?
I can't believe everyone thought Obama was the candidate that would bring change to this country. I guess that just shows how good of a job the media did to make sure most of the population thought that Ron Paul was a nut job..... It saddens me to say it, but I don't think Dr. Paul will ever get elected president because most Americans are just way too stupid to see past the main stream media. We can only hope. Ron Paul 2012 baby! Lets make it happen.
@Metalgear55 ya but there american now not europeans an sum of them were british i think its fuck up but no 1 cares about the native americans but jews thay love an sum 1 spamed u wtf
The Zionists in Israel and those in the US government will do whatever it takes to limit his message. Ron Paul places the interest of the US tax-payer before Israel..its too bad there are so few like him in government.
man, i wish his son was as steadfast as his father. ron paul 2012! rand? eh...i suppose better than the establishment but still haven't made up my mind about him yet
the problem I hear with Ron Paul and others who speak about the founding fathers what they was and not... they lived ffs for like 200+ years ago who cares what they was or not, they lived in a whole diffrent world then we do today.ffs these people "INHERITED THEIR MONEY AND NOBILITY" so to say, they was against taxes to help poor people isnt suprising at all when yourself are served on a silver plate based on brithright.
@quezcatol The Founding Father who wrote our Constitution wanted liberty for all. They are the reason this is the Greatest Country in the World. We have been the wealthiest and the more free nation. They were not against taxes. They thought the Government should be able to run on a budget with tariffs (taxes) from imports and exports. Not tax the people for money to waste on ineffective programs, corporate welfare, federal aid to States, huge salaries and benefits for politicians
@quizerry with all though respect, I dont give a damn, they lived for like 200 years ago. We face new problems, with diffrent kind of living standards then they did.
Time to move on. but then again, im not from America, so who am I to talk about your decisions. peace.
I see. Our founding fathers and constitution suck because they are "old." Talk about a retort that is getting old. But you are a product of late 20th century early 21st century education so I have to forgive you. You had everything dumbed down into old=bad, new = good.
What is old is tyranny. What is old are utopian delusions and we are headed down those paths. What is old is age discrimination.
@quizerry Right on. There is nothing we face today that our Constitution is unprepared to handle. We have the most revolutionary and novel form of government in existence.
@quezcatol Spoken with true ignorance. The American Revolution ENDED aristocracy here you dim witted cretin. Nobody is served anything based upon birthright anymore. You must be from Europe.
And we are against stealing and slavery which is what taxation amounts to.
Government endorsed slavery? Government is subject to the willingness of the people and individuals who insisted on slavery threatened to break any government that refused their right to own human beings. It was libertarian governing principles that promoted slavery until it was forced by laws and violence to abandon it. We would still have slavery if up to Ron.
I have no problem with libertarianism as a part of the mix in planning the future. But historical revisionism, I will not stand for
Ron Paul for President.. a true patriot.. We need a new Pro-Constitution revolution.
It won't be easy but it will be worth it for our children and their children.. A government of the People, by the People and for the People... Let's get it done.
RON YOU THE PUNK. ARIES SPEAR IS A REAl CAT. YOU GONNA SUE INSTEAD OF CATCHIN HANDS.YOU A WEENIE. REAL TALK. I CANT BELIEVE THE WAY YOU SWITH UP LIKE THAT ITS A JOKE. TO THINK WE GOT YOU IN CONGRESS. POLI - TRICKS.
"The Founding Fathers Were Libertarians", I think RP is deluding. May be he needs to revisit that. The disagreements between them are well-documented.
@bazookafluke I do agree that the three groups u mention are delusional, in effect, I found the belief of any political ideology as a solution delusional. But, in relation to "HOW", the problem with men is moral, not ontological, ergo claiming that more of this moral problem "greed" will materialise a better society is delusional. Look, in terms of this ideology: What would force BP to solve the oil likeage problem?
Well, wouldn't greed motivate BP to solve the problem? By the time this is all said and done it's going to cost them billions in clean-up. I just don't think they're sitting around picking their noses, I'm sure they're doing all they can do to end this once and for all.
@bazookafluke It will cost them, if it is found that they incured in something illegal, otherwise will be the government. Remember Obama assigned the task of investigating this accident to a former director of the WWF. The WWF owned by the British monarchy, that is Prince Charles. BP is owned by the same family. Who owns Obama? The problem is moral.
@agfigueroaa Let's not split hairs, the founders were classical liberals and constitutional moderates. The libertarian movement in the US is based on the same school of thought.
Somebody here made a great point: Humans have the right to be racist. Being racist is not as evil as depicted by the torch bearing villagers of our modern day Salem.
What we don't have a right to, however, is to infringe upon the lives, liberties and the pursuit of happiness of others.
Property rights extends to beyond ownership. Property rights recognizes that I can use it as I see fit, excepting the above.
@mongoose704 i agree theoretically with everything you're saying. but just for the sake of it, i'm going to ask questions because i like to leave no stone unturned. my views are very libertarian i'm starting to find but i feel like it doesn't address EVERYTHING, ya know? for example, prevailing social attitudes. so the civil rights act isn't an issue now, that's fine. but if there was a small community where racism is allowed, wouldn't it be believable that it may escalate to violence?
Which is why we have laws against violence. But remember that we have laws against violence and it still happens. Authoritarian pro government types have this silly faith that just by adding a few rules we could prevent, say, the financial crisis and everyone will follow.
Of course rules are only as effective as they can be enforced. Attitudes? thoughts? Legislating and regulating those is futile.
@mongoose704 and if that's the case does government have a role in addressing/preventing such escalation or are they only responsible after the fact, if racial tensions lead to someone committing an act where one infringes upon someone else's liberties? it's just something for me to think about because frankly, i just don't know...with that said, ron paul 2012
@mongoose704 thanks for your response. out of curiosity, what's the libertarian solution towards raising children? i understand that every parent has the right to raise his or her own kid but what if kids are taught immoral values or raised on junk food? my only concern is that the child never had a chance, which is the only reason i bring it up. or is it the position that families like anything else must learn by example from other upstanding families and not through force?
@wunderbeast Actually libertarians boast much fewer solutions because we realize that we aren't smart enough to manage, run, or plan your life.
Let's look at it pragmatically. We commit a tremendous amount of legislation, money and resources to the war on drugs and people still use them about as much as they ever did. It isn't working. We're wasting money and resources and thus creating more misery. Sadly suffering is a reality in nature and government often compound it with interference
@mongoose704 to take it further, the free market would put less of a financial burden on struggling poor families, which in turn would raise their standard of living, which in turn will make the parents treat their children better. is my line of thinking correct?
@wunderbeast recent studies are showing that there is much less of a relationship between income and domestic violence as previously thought, Mainly because those of higher income are actually less likely to be counted. Mainly due to their mobility. They rarely have to enter shelters or even contact law enforcement. They just split.
But I agree returning to the free market and abandoning the inflation of planned economies would make it easier for low income families to make ends meet.
@mongoose704 That's pretty much why Hate Crimes are bullshit, it's not a charge of the offense it's a charge of your personal opinions. Which I believe to be a huge "fuck you" to amendment numero uno
@mongoose704 "Somebody here made a great point: Humans have the right to be racist."
Perhaps they have the right to be racist, but I still think it's in pretty damned poor taste to judge somebody based on their skin color, their religion, or whatever. I shun racists, but really, I would have to agree they have a right to exist. You can't legislate it out people.
The word libertarian is virtually meaningless today. Everyone claims to be libertarian. Communists, fascists, neocons, corporatists, socialists, etc all claim to be libertarian today even though their philosophies are diametrically opposed to the classic meaning of the word. Of course they can claim to be because they first debased the language and changed the meaning of the word.
@mongoose704 Ayn Rand was correct in her criticism of the Big Tent nature of libertarianism. It has allowed those who are anti-thetic to individual liberty to hijack the movement, ala socialists and now neocons.
There are countless private businesses in America that are exclusive to Latinos, Asians and Blacks and denying others.
But whites? Hardly any. I don't call it reverse discrimination. It is discrimination period. Whites have to admit all but blacks, latinos and asians don't. In my town there are over twenty businesses that deny whites.
". . .There are countless private businesses in America that are exclusive to Latinos, Asians and Blacks and denying others. . .In my town there are over twenty businesses that deny whites. . . ."
unfortunately, ron paul, milton friedman, alan greenspan, ayn rand, nor ludwig von mises are libertarians. they are neo-classicals. classical liberalism is not the neoliberalism sold as libertarianism today. classical liberals had a deeper understanding best expressed by henry george in 1879.
@jeepndesert Every single person on the list has fundamentally different viewpoints. To lump them together is basically like lumping George Bush with Ralph Nader
Segregation WAS almost exclusively by law.I once read the Woolworth manager told the Greensboro Boys he didn't object to them eating there,but it was illegal.
Philosophical debate my balls. Are you saying that you'd be fine with a black couple pulling over at a gas station in the middle of the road and being denied access to the restroom because the owner is a racist? Come-fucking-on! There's no distinction between businesses and dwellings? Sure they are both private properties Ron Paul, the same way a kiwi and an eagle are both birds. One is public the other one is YOUR FUCKING HOUSE! What a bunch of loonies!
@viniciusb It is philosophical. Either you belive that government can step in where there are issues that many find objectionable, or you belive that in a free society that individuals can chose what to do and that its citizens will decide wether they condone it or not. You dont get rid of racism or drugs by legislation. You change it with attitudes, but that has to come from the people and not the government.
@CortoMaltese86 I'm not a radical and I don't hava position as you do that delegates what I think about every issue. Drugs is something you do to yourself and one should have the right to do whatever they want to themselves but they should be also liable if it affects other people. You do get rid of racism through legislation, that's exactly what happened after 64, it started to fade away until 9/11 hit. People are supporting a law that racial profiles Mexicans. People, are fucking stupid.
@starwarsgg That's my point. People assert that you can't discriminate against skin color in your restaurant, but for some reason you can discriminate with respect to 1st amendment and 2nd amendment. It doesn't matter if the restaurant is downtown, it's still private, and the own can discriminate against whomever the fuck he wants.
Settle down and think a little before you get so emotional and weird. How long do you really think a gas station (or any other business) that denied blacks the option to use their facilities would stay in business today? And why would you want to patronize and contribute to the profits of a business who only serves certain people they don't like because they're forced to by law?
@bazookafluke No, I won't settle down, not on this issue. Yes, I am very passionate about it, and I'd hate to see your position become a reality. How long do you think a gas station that denied service to blacks survived in the past? Oh, forgive me, we are so much more evolved today. The current LAW, forces individuals to interact and that interaction helps get rid of racism, it belittles racism and provides a system where victims of racism can defend themselves.
@viniciusb A private business is not public. I think that's pretty obvious. You have the right to deny anyone access to your home for any reason. Similarly you have the right to deny anyone access to your business for any reason. It's not that hard to understand.
Great point, I think Ron explains things a lot clearer than Rand, and it helps that Colmes is informed on the issue and calls it a philosophical question about the role of government instead of a racial issue.
@HarryNRubin Two of my favorite quotes by Ayn Rand on the issue of racism:
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism ... [the notion] that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."
"Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue—and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism."
Junior is no senior. Senior knows how to handle the hard questions with grace and gives off peaceful vibes. Rand seems to get more easily frustrated/angry, and it shows. Although, Ron use to flip out back in his day, as can be seen on some of the older clips.
@VictoryCough This is not a philosophical debate you freaking child. This is about real fucking signs reading NO COLORED PEOPLE ALLOWED. Do you have any idea how many social and psychological issues this would bring back to our society? If you don't, then read some books and watch some documentaries on the issue or just ask your dad if he's not a freaking racist either. What are you people fucking 15?
You might be missing the point here, viniciusb. The position Rand and Ron are taking is indeed philosophic. They believe that private businesses are still private property. They are not public property like parks, roads, buses/trains are. They also believe grassroots movements like Dr. MLK's efforts, which inspired millions, is far more effective at uprooting racism than government mandates. What would you prefer, government force, or inspiration from a captivating figure like MLK?
@viniciusb people are already allowed to refuse service to whom ever they want. this is not an important debate at all. go ahead and let people put up what ever racist sign they want on there business. how good do you think that business will do? it probably wont last after the media flames it and people stop going there. this isnt rocket science little man
@fupasack2 No, they are not allowed to refuse service on the basis of racism. How good do I think that business would do? Have you heard of history? Have you seen the growing racist sentiment in this country? That business, would do extremely well if placed in the right city and state even TODAY. The problem about the media, big man, is that there was also the side that supported segregation. In fact, that side is still alive and well. You are right, this isn't rocket science.
@viniciusb you have to be dumb as mud to think that a business that advertises as being racist would do well. you do realize we have a black president right? and even if it did, so what? government is not going to change the way people think and feel. and yes businesses can refuse service TO ANYONE at anytime and they DONT HAVE TO HAVE A REASON OR EXPLANATION. let that sink in a bit....
@fupasack2 Yeah, I'm the crazy one who thinks there is a big portion of this country (tea baggers) anxiously waiting to support this kind of business. We do have a black president, but 100% of the presidents were white males before Obama. LOL, "Government is not going to change the way people think and feel." You are so funny! Again, they can silently refuse service as soon as they don't claim racism, post racist signs or kick black patrons out of their business at gun point.
@viniciusb just because a country has a history of racism, does not mean the offspring will. people dont clone themselves when they reproduce. having a black president proves this(sadly, not much else though). your basing your thoughts on assumptions. people need rights because governments always fail. I have the right to be racist at any time I want, so do businesses, this a silly "debate", as paul said
@viniciusb cala a boca ae negão o que que vc quer discutir com os americano tu nasceu no brasil seu merda, se bota no teu lugar seu perdido! vc é muito babaca fica ai discutindo com os gringo! vc é um otário perdedor de tempo (y) só pq se formou no CCAA e foi pro estados unidos tá achando que pode falar alguma merda! seu lixo!!!
@viniciusb Vini, you're the only one acting like a child. Your emotional opinionated comments reflect nothing of real sane value.
It is Philosophical, and to say it's not is ignorant on your part. Libertarians are not racist, as it directly conflicts with the ideology.
The point was, whether government has the right to interfere in such issues, which they don't. Either you completely stand by liberty or you don't. You can't pick and choose.
@viniciusb The portion of the Civil Rights that many libertarians openly criticize is outlawing of discrimination on private property that happens to be a business. It's the definition of a philosophical debate. You either have voluntary exchange or your do not. You can't take away real rights to create new rights and eating in a privately owned restaurant is not a right!
For some reason you assume discrimination based on race would be wide spread! We are a much more liberal society than that!
you can praise capitalism for the 12 hour work day. How would you like to work for 1/20 or less of the money your labor generates for me? Yes, you wouldn't have minimum wage and overtime without socialist labor laws.
Imbed and Share this! This point of view escapes people, the comforting grip of federal intervention is going to lead to a second rate country for our children. Use common sense, govern the same way.
To me, the Founding Fathers failed to realize that the nation they formed as a republic based on the ancient principles found in Athens, Rome and Carthage decades, centuries and a millenia later transformed into a global corporate/military republican empire which dominates half the globe. If the United States collapses sometime in the future, it would be a happy occasion for the planet.
Rand should have handled that situation like his daddy did right here. It was simply something brought up to discredit and what they were discussing was 5 decades old. And it simply played on the many blacks who are dying to 'fit in' and white people who feel eternally guilty about things they had nothing to do with. Emotion driven society. We're the only minority that as a whole has this problem. I still support this man and his son. Peace to all. Go Ron/Rand Paul!
He handled that much better than his son. They would be in trouble if they tried to pull that stuff on Ron Paul because every time Ron Paul replies to an accusation people learn something about freedom.
Ron Paul truly has a Patriotic Spirit living inside him...Please type.......Marty Raybon......in the search box and check out this Patriotic video also, then please share it with all your friends
I give mad props to Alan Colmes for giving Ron PAul the light of day, and making it very clear that Paul is not a racist, and letting him express his views without slander. RON PAUL 2012
This has been flagged as spam show
the error of libertarianism lies not in championing liberty, but in championing liberty to the exclusion of all other values. Libertarians hold that individual liberty should never be sacrificed in the pursuit of other values or causes. Compassion, justice, civic responsibility, honesty, decency, humility, respect, and even survival of the poor, weak, and vulnerable -- all are to take a back seat.
slsslc 2 weeks ago
@hempbilly I just be trolling
starwarsROXmy 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
democratsaresmart 6 months ago
One cannot make a statement such as,"The founders were libertarians," and claim this is an objective view of history. This is exactly what I don't like about Ron Paul. He makes factually incorrect politically motivated claims. The same is true with the MLK Jr. reference. A bus boycott in the 1950s-60s south would work, because blacks were economically disadvantaged. They had to ride the bus. Even if there were no laws segregating businesses like restaurants, blacks still wouldn't get in the door
jjevans2009 7 months ago
Actually the problem is the founding fathers were not JUST libertarians.
They are also very liberal in that they want everyone to have equality. They wanted life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all in the U.S. However how can we say we want equality for all when we let our own citizens dies when insurance companies conduct malpractice and deny treatment? Are sick people happy?
Founding fathers were Liberal Libertarians and not Conservative Libertarians.
I do like Ron Paul though.
Neosaigo 7 months ago
@Neosaigo "They are also very liberal in that they want everyone to have equality"
Well actually that is what libertarian means. Libertarianism comes from the word liberty which basically means freedom, and with freedom comes equality. Liberalism is also based on the same word. Classical Liberalism would be consider libertarianism today.
So saying "Liberal Libertarian" is more of a correlation seeing how they essentially mean the same thing. Same can be said about "Conservative Libertarian."
newart2004 7 months ago
I honestly believe Ron Paul will be the inspiration that will paved the road for his son, Rand Paul, to become President of the United States.
newart2004 8 months ago 9
@newart2004 Geez, I hope not. You do understand that Ron Paul is full of sh*t in this video. A blatant and politically motivated falsification of American history. The founders were all libertarians? The difference in ideologies were far greater than the narrow slice of political ideology that exists today. Besides, libertarians are always quoting Thomas Jefferson on liberty. We should listen to a man who owned other human beings when it comes to liberty... yeah right.
jjevans2009 7 months ago
@jjevans2009 You really have no idea what your talking about do you? If you took the time and studied the founding fathers you would see that they are more inline with the libertarians of today, especially the antifederalists. They believed the only power government had was the power in the U.S. Constitution, which is the core belief of American libertarians.
newart2004 7 months ago
@newart2004 Your reply is not accurate. First, the original document that was submitted at the Constututional Convention gave the federal government far more power than some states wanted. The "small states" proposal was essentially the Articles of Confederation, which they were there to fix, so a compromise was made. To act as though everyone agreed on the document is to deny history. John Adams was anything but a libertarian, so to claim he or Washington, Jay, or Hamilton were... cont
jjevans2009 7 months ago
@jjevans2009 First off I meant to put Democratic-Republican Party not antifederalist, that's my mistake. Anyways I never act as though the founders agreed on everything. Of course they had difference in ideologies. However, even the Federalist, who were loose constructionist, would not approve most of the government today. So yes that would put them on the libertarian side. So the founding fathers as a whole were essentially libertarian.
cont...
newart2004 7 months ago
@jjevans2009 ...cont
Also not everything in American politics is centered around race, that's absurd. The only kind of people who believe that are racist. Now there have been times throughout history that politics revolved around race, but not all the time. You are probably on of those people who thinks anyone who opposes Obama is most likely a racist... right?
newart2004 7 months ago
@newart2004 That's just like a YouTube intellectual. "You're probably..." You do not have enough knowledge of American history or politics to debate my point.
jjevans2009 7 months ago
@jjevans2009 Yawn... OK whatever helps you sleep at night. Here I was thinking you actually knew what your were talking about, but just like most people on the internet all you have is talking points. How silly of me.
newart2004 7 months ago
@newart2004 What? First, you have already commented that you believe I do not know what I am "talking" about, and the reply I recently posted was in reference to your assumptions about my views on race and Obama. You're a hypocrite. It's fine for you to leave comments based on your ignorant assumptions, but when I use factual information to show you that your views are flawed, you just hurl more baseless accusations. Instead of buying political ideology without question, try thinking.
jjevans2009 7 months ago
@jjevans2009 Hmm. When did I talk about my political ideology? Besides when I stated that I support Ron Paul. And I'm sorry if my race comment offended you, but 90% of anti-Ron Paul people on YouTube tend to have that belief. Also I stand by what I said, though you did have some good points on the founding father issue. However you're mistaken. To say that the Democrat-Republican party weren't libertarians shows your lack of knowledge about the libertarian ideology.
(cont...)
newart2004 7 months ago
@jjevans2009 (..cont)
That goes with saying that the federalist party wasn't more inline with libertarians. Sure they were loose constructionist, but no where near what the modern Democrat and Republican parties are today. So yes, as a whole the founding fathers were libertarians. Yes they had some differences, but just like libertarians today have differences, doesn't change they fact that they are libertarian.
newart2004 7 months ago
@newart2004 You have no clue. Like most politically illiterate Americans you attach your political beliefs to "the founders" to validate your views. To say that "the founders" were all Libertarians is absurd and ignorant. You have no idea who I am and yet you question my knowledge. I obviously know much more about American history and politics than someone such as yourself who displays such an infantile understanding of the issues. Plain and simple: you and Ron Paul are wrong. Grow up.
jjevans2009 6 months ago
@jjevans2009 Oh wow I forgot about this little debate. Hmm... whatever, I grew tired of you. Believe what you want.
newart2004 6 months ago
@newart2004 You forgot? I check my stupid YouTube account after 3 1/2 weeks and read your pathetic replies, and now it's "Believe what you want." Do you want to know why America is being flushed down the toilet? Look in the mirror moron. "Uh duh the founders were all Libertarians uh duh." How can you be so f*cking stupid? Seriously, I would like to know. How can someone have such an unrealistic view? You and people like you are f*cking everything up for everyone else.
jjevans2009 6 months ago
@jjevans2009 I'm sorry that I don't feel like debating a retard who hasn't brought up any facts in his last two post, just insults. I'm sorry that my life doesn't revolved around YouTube and can remember every little pointless debate.
By they way, America is screwed because of arrogant assholes like you who can't accept other peoples views on pointless matters. Maybe when you move out of your mom's basement and have a real understanding of the world, you might know where I am coming from.
newart2004 6 months ago
@newart2004 Obviously your life does revolve around YouTube. "Uh duh Maybe when you move out of your mom's basement and have a real understanding of the world uh duh." Gee that has never before been posted on YouTube. A real understanding of the world? You believe this fairytale bullshit that a career politician feeds you. The Constitution was a compromise because the men ratifying it had drastically different political views. That is reality not "everyone was a Libertarian." Now f*ck off.
jjevans2009 6 months ago
@jjevans2009 Oh man I didn't realize you were a kid, or at least have the mentality of one. Which explains why you have nothing but insults to debate your point. Whatever you're boring me.
newart2004 6 months ago
@newart2004 Really? Nothing but insults? If I'm a kid and you're a grown person than you are amazingly stupid. You just throw tired ass insults like, "Maybe when you move out of your mom's basement and have a real understanding of the world," meanwhile displaying a complete lack of knowledge and a complete lack of ability to think critically. You are a moron and all one has to do to realize this is read your idiotic comments. You cannot accept that you are wrong and should shut the f*ck up.
jjevans2009 6 months ago
@jjevans2009 fuck you
starwarsROXmy 1 month ago
@newart2004 fuck you
starwarsROXmy 1 month ago
@newart2004 libertarians is absurd. Ron Paul is politically opposed to their ideology. Secondly, politics in American have always centered on race. You saying I do not have an idea is ridiculous. I've obviously studied history much more than you. Look at your anti federalists claim. In fact, the federalist papers were a pitch in support of ratifying the Constitution. Anti federalists opposed the Constitution. Geez, this is high school level history. Leave it to an ideologue to twist history.
jjevans2009 7 months ago
@jjevans2009 As for your slavery comment, you can't apply the social morals of today to the morals of then. If you stick to that logic then you wouldn't like any historical figure. Even Abraham Lincoln, he referred to black people as "negros," which we see as wrong now and days. However, most people with actual thought realizes this and don't make silly arguments such as the one you made. So stop looking at everything through racist eyes, and grow up.
newart2004 7 months ago
@newart2004 hopefully similar, but yet opposite the Bush ohana
kalahiki808 3 weeks ago
I never get tired of hearing Ron Paul, God i love that man
BorgKing001 9 months ago
To all those bashing the Founding Fathers for being slave owners. I BET YOU ANYTHING that you voted Democrat and will always do so based upon 'entitlement' and how the government bing in your life is a 'good thing.' You people wanna bash one group while FAILING to recognize a couple things. A.) MLK JR - REPUBLICAN. B.) KKK - STARTED BY DEMS C.) JIM CROW - ENFORCED BY DEMS. D.) YOU ARE ALL PAWNS AND MEAN NOTHING TO THE DEM PARTY BUT A VOTE!
demopublic 10 months ago
@demopublic Very interesting and good post. As far as I am concerned, anyone who votes JUST FOR A PARTY is a sheep and a fool. Great men like Dr. Paul vote on the issues and for liberty.
I never knew MLK jr was a republican.
TheRelentlessRT 10 months ago
@TheRelentlessRT MLK was indeed a GOPer. Feel free to look it up. I agree w/ it being sheepish and foolish to vote just for a party. I have been backing Ron Paul since 08 and will continue to do so. :)
demopublic 10 months ago
@demopublic I believe you about MLK. I just never knew that. Interesting stuff.
TheRelentlessRT 10 months ago
@demopublic You're not looking at the time MLK Jr was alive. The south was Democratic until the late 1960s because of Republican Re Construction. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until Johnson signed the Civil Rights legislation that Ron Paul believes wasn't needed. In 1968 MLK supporters were also supporters of Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, both Democrats. You're comparing modern Democrats with Dixiecrats. Your statement is as biased as Ron Paul's.
jjevans2009 7 months ago
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Let the 3rd American Revolution begin!
1= 1776
2= 1865
3=2012
rhinnawi95 10 months ago
6:01 - lol.
also. Ron Paul 2012.
LibertarianChristian 10 months ago
The comments in this blog clearly indicate that a great many people misunderstand the idea of liberty - it does not mean that everybody gets to do anything they like - but that your ability to do so is limited by infriging on the free choice of others. Does that mean that you can run a white only lunch counter? Yes, you have the right to be an idiot - just as anyone who disagrees has the right to boycott that same racist business. Liberty is noting more than freedom of choice in your relations.
Zindiq1 10 months ago 3
the only smart politican in america
unfad1ng 10 months ago
@zombiefitnezz next they will pass laws forcing Asians to smile at Mexican strangers, or high school students to not throw paper airplanes in class. Why draw any line? Force Women only organizations to allow men to join. Government has no business interjecting in business, only to protect the nation from foreign attack and budget national funds carefully and responsibly. They fail miserably at those two things.. why allow them any more power?
nickvonmises 10 months ago
@zombiefitnezz why be a cliche angry cussing YouTube poster? Why not peacefully discuss an issue? Especially if your intention is to enlighten and teach others?
nickvonmises 10 months ago
If you give the government power to dictate how any business runs you are meddling in a negative way with the economy. Any business shunning blacks will be all over the news and they would fear for their lives because the community would chase them into a dark alley with pitchforks and torches. ... oh and they would lose tons of customers.
nickvonmises 10 months ago
Ron Paul makes some great points as always but he's very wrong about his last point, plenty of businesses would, and still do, discriminate, as evidenced by the recent business that that refused to serve TSA workers. Now one can argue that it should be their right to discriminate but to pretend that the marketplace will eliminate discrimination on its own is either stupid or dishonest...
donteatthefishsticks 10 months ago
(cont'd)...I'm a transgender woman and I find it somewhat difficult enough as it is to find employment even with British Columbia's comprehensive anti-discrimination laws because a lot of people just don't want somebody like me anywhere near them and many employers worry that I will scare their customers off, etc. There is already a huge problem of trans people turning to sex work because they can't find any other work and so I think anti-discrimination laws are necessary to protect minorities.
donteatthefishsticks 10 months ago
@deficithawker Actually he did not.. you should do some more research.
nod1207 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Breaking your habit naughty women benaughtyman.info
deenajuliette 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the founding farters were slave owning assoles.
matchbox555 1 year ago
@matchbox555 some were some were not. Not to defend slavery. They also agreed to a document that eventually ended salvery in this country.
dependentonunclesam 1 year ago
The Founding Fathers were not Libertarian like Ron Paul. Libertarian in 1780 is totally different than Libertarianism of the 2000s. Mercantalism as an issue alone makes the discussion absurdest. Modern Libertarianism is an abomination.
watch?v=ZmtGFhRmgPM
youngbuck189 1 year ago
@youngbuck189 quit trying to get people to watch your shitty video with nothing factual about libertarians or ayn rand, no one takes a dread lock seriously anyways
dbill27 1 year ago
exactly
v
v
toophatpoyo 1 year ago
idiot
v
v
romanpr1nce 1 year ago
So why doesn't rand paul hang around brothas?
dragnet53 1 year ago
@dragnet53 how do you know he doesnt?
dbill27 1 year ago
you know what i don't understand. why are libertarians usually religious. I mean, libertarians are like atheists in the 1900s. correct but shunned.
people's rationality only goes so far i guess... they get to the bit where they realize (correctly) that there is no god. why can't they stop inserting government to fix things they believe the free-market cannot fix.
It is like calling for god every time we think evolution doesn't work. except government actually comes and fucks things up :(
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
@TheAttackRat I'm Libertarian, and I'm not religious. Most Libertarians I know aren't religious either. It might be where your from lol. But yeah, as far as religion and libertarianism is concerned (like Ron Paul), they don't expect or advocate that the government should make religious opinion law (as opposed to religious people in every other party, especially the Republican party and the so-called "Constitution" party).
streetcrazy 1 year ago
Nice to hear reasonable people have an intelligent conversation.
HimmuraTube 1 year ago 21
Also schools sugar coat the mass murders of natives, to drive them off land that they lived on for centures, isn't that an exploit which should be addressed in schools correctly, because by lying we say its okay even though we know it was wrong. Exploitation is an instinct, because instigation against a person or persons is a kind of exploitation, who doesn't instigate to hurt someone to gain a benefit?
richrnndz2 1 year ago
@richrnndz2
It must be other schools who sugar coat it, because my school definitely emphasizes the fact that civilizations were destroyed to make way for European colonization.
Obviously seizing the land and life of others violates the concept of private property.
Smokecrackcain 1 year ago
You have to admit it is an instinct, sometimes we see it done to others and we do nothing, isn't that saying that its ok? When we stay quiet and watch it happen? When you buy products made in china, mexico, thailand, etc.. etc.. Hmmmm. so many exploits, millions quiet, to me it looks like its okay. Killing is punished because we have appalled ppl who want justice done, including a system with lawyers ready to seek punishment for the worng doers.
richrnndz2 1 year ago
@richrnndz2 instinct? are u all still not clear ok i was being picky my bad coz instinct is not the right word expoiting is learned behaviour thus not an instinct instincts are natural pycology tell us this but maybe im just being to picky an u do bring up sum good points it is everyway
kingpharaohtsar 1 year ago
@LordSparkisvati Because exploiting guilt doesn't work that way lol
DosuZakuKin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To state that our founding were libertarians, goes against everything they did. Down to creating a currency system and taxation system. I don't defend government, because I do acknowledge that it sometimes acts incompetent. But we can't forget the simple fact that we are human, mysterious, complex creatures with many contradictions. So the question is, do we cease to be humans with or without government? With our basic instinct to exploit each other?
richrnndz2 1 year ago
To state that our founding were libertarians, goes against everything they did. Down to creating a currency system and taxation system. I don't defend government, because I do acknowledge that it sometimes acts incompetent. But we can't forget the simple fact that we are human, mysterious, complex creatures with many contradictions. So the question is, do we cease to be humans with or without government? With our basic instinct to exploit each other?
richrnndz2 1 year ago
@richrnndz2 basic instincts eat sex kill explotition is more than an instinct its like lieing its conscious saying its instinct makes it sound ok
kingpharaohtsar 1 year ago
I can't believe everyone thought Obama was the candidate that would bring change to this country. I guess that just shows how good of a job the media did to make sure most of the population thought that Ron Paul was a nut job..... It saddens me to say it, but I don't think Dr. Paul will ever get elected president because most Americans are just way too stupid to see past the main stream media. We can only hope. Ron Paul 2012 baby! Lets make it happen.
ElectroTbone 1 year ago 3
I really hope he runs in 2012. We need our liberties and freedom back ! Private property rights have been trampled on for way too long.
PikSokolit 1 year ago
if you want REAL change vote for ron paul 2012 and let the Revolution begin !
Skankpronger 1 year ago 57
@Skankpronger Sorry but politicians aren't super heroes.
hempbilly 3 months ago
@hempbilly fuck you
starwarsROXmy 1 month ago
@starwarsROXmy Oh sorry you still believe in super heroes do you pray to an imaginary friend too?
hempbilly 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
white europeans did really bad things to native indians, and white people dont even recognize the native indians!
This gencide is not even spoken in the white countries!
White european have done the biggest genocide on this world, but they seem to be happy with the life they have!!
How can this be accepted?
And white europeans talk about human rights... its so sickening when they do that! They are murders and everybody with a brain can see it!
The same happen in asia and africa!
Metalgear55 1 year ago
@Metalgear55 ya but there american now not europeans an sum of them were british i think its fuck up but no 1 cares about the native americans but jews thay love an sum 1 spamed u wtf
kingpharaohtsar 1 year ago
@kingpharaohtsar no you not.... you still a murder and a benifter..
Metalgear55 1 year ago
@Metalgear55 what do u mean benifter im not american iv nothing to do with genoside of native americans im celt
kingpharaohtsar 1 year ago
@kingpharaohtsar off course not...
Metalgear55 1 year ago
The Zionists in Israel and those in the US government will do whatever it takes to limit his message. Ron Paul places the interest of the US tax-payer before Israel..its too bad there are so few like him in government.
kuza01 1 year ago
@kuza01 jews muslambs an even christians thinking is bullshit u want freedom thay need to go zionists included
kingpharaohtsar 1 year ago
man, i wish his son was as steadfast as his father. ron paul 2012! rand? eh...i suppose better than the establishment but still haven't made up my mind about him yet
wunderbeast 1 year ago
I wish there were 534 just like Ron Paul in Congress and the Senate. If there were we would all be better off and the economy would be booming.
quizerry 1 year ago
the problem I hear with Ron Paul and others who speak about the founding fathers what they was and not... they lived ffs for like 200+ years ago who cares what they was or not, they lived in a whole diffrent world then we do today.ffs these people "INHERITED THEIR MONEY AND NOBILITY" so to say, they was against taxes to help poor people isnt suprising at all when yourself are served on a silver plate based on brithright.
quezcatol 1 year ago
@quezcatol The Founding Father who wrote our Constitution wanted liberty for all. They are the reason this is the Greatest Country in the World. We have been the wealthiest and the more free nation. They were not against taxes. They thought the Government should be able to run on a budget with tariffs (taxes) from imports and exports. Not tax the people for money to waste on ineffective programs, corporate welfare, federal aid to States, huge salaries and benefits for politicians
quizerry 1 year ago 2
@quizerry with all though respect, I dont give a damn, they lived for like 200 years ago. We face new problems, with diffrent kind of living standards then they did.
Time to move on. but then again, im not from America, so who am I to talk about your decisions. peace.
quezcatol 1 year ago
I see. Our founding fathers and constitution suck because they are "old." Talk about a retort that is getting old. But you are a product of late 20th century early 21st century education so I have to forgive you. You had everything dumbed down into old=bad, new = good.
What is old is tyranny. What is old are utopian delusions and we are headed down those paths. What is old is age discrimination.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@quizerry Right on. There is nothing we face today that our Constitution is unprepared to handle. We have the most revolutionary and novel form of government in existence.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@quezcatol Spoken with true ignorance. The American Revolution ENDED aristocracy here you dim witted cretin. Nobody is served anything based upon birthright anymore. You must be from Europe.
And we are against stealing and slavery which is what taxation amounts to.
mongoose704 1 year ago
Government endorsed slavery? Government is subject to the willingness of the people and individuals who insisted on slavery threatened to break any government that refused their right to own human beings. It was libertarian governing principles that promoted slavery until it was forced by laws and violence to abandon it. We would still have slavery if up to Ron.
I have no problem with libertarianism as a part of the mix in planning the future. But historical revisionism, I will not stand for
bosatsu76 1 year ago
@bosatsu76 Sorry but you are mistaken.
quizerry 1 year ago
@quizerry I need a little more than that to go on. Mistaken how? If you are going to argue, make a point and justify it.
bosatsu76 1 year ago
Ron Paul for President.. a true patriot.. We need a new Pro-Constitution revolution.
It won't be easy but it will be worth it for our children and their children.. A government of the People, by the People and for the People... Let's get it done.
TACMAN518 1 year ago 2
RON YOU THE PUNK. ARIES SPEAR IS A REAl CAT. YOU GONNA SUE INSTEAD OF CATCHIN HANDS.YOU A WEENIE. REAL TALK. I CANT BELIEVE THE WAY YOU SWITH UP LIKE THAT ITS A JOKE. TO THINK WE GOT YOU IN CONGRESS. POLI - TRICKS.
kreggtony 1 year ago
"The Founding Fathers Were Libertarians", I think RP is deluding. May be he needs to revisit that. The disagreements between them are well-documented.
Anyways, liberterians are delusional.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa
How do you figure libertarians are delusional? Or at least any more delusional than republicans and democarats are?
bazookafluke 1 year ago
@bazookafluke I do agree that the three groups u mention are delusional, in effect, I found the belief of any political ideology as a solution delusional. But, in relation to "HOW", the problem with men is moral, not ontological, ergo claiming that more of this moral problem "greed" will materialise a better society is delusional. Look, in terms of this ideology: What would force BP to solve the oil likeage problem?
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Because of this inherent inmorality, facists families, embracing the DuPonts, have supported and promoted this ideology.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
Well, wouldn't greed motivate BP to solve the problem? By the time this is all said and done it's going to cost them billions in clean-up. I just don't think they're sitting around picking their noses, I'm sure they're doing all they can do to end this once and for all.
bazookafluke 1 year ago
@bazookafluke It will cost them, if it is found that they incured in something illegal, otherwise will be the government. Remember Obama assigned the task of investigating this accident to a former director of the WWF. The WWF owned by the British monarchy, that is Prince Charles. BP is owned by the same family. Who owns Obama? The problem is moral.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Let's not split hairs, the founders were classical liberals and constitutional moderates. The libertarian movement in the US is based on the same school of thought.
VictoryCough 1 year ago
@VictoryCough I am afraid no.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
Somebody here made a great point: Humans have the right to be racist. Being racist is not as evil as depicted by the torch bearing villagers of our modern day Salem.
What we don't have a right to, however, is to infringe upon the lives, liberties and the pursuit of happiness of others.
Property rights extends to beyond ownership. Property rights recognizes that I can use it as I see fit, excepting the above.
mongoose704 1 year ago 66
@mongoose704 i agree theoretically with everything you're saying. but just for the sake of it, i'm going to ask questions because i like to leave no stone unturned. my views are very libertarian i'm starting to find but i feel like it doesn't address EVERYTHING, ya know? for example, prevailing social attitudes. so the civil rights act isn't an issue now, that's fine. but if there was a small community where racism is allowed, wouldn't it be believable that it may escalate to violence?
wunderbeast 1 year ago
@wunderbeast
Which is why we have laws against violence. But remember that we have laws against violence and it still happens. Authoritarian pro government types have this silly faith that just by adding a few rules we could prevent, say, the financial crisis and everyone will follow.
Of course rules are only as effective as they can be enforced. Attitudes? thoughts? Legislating and regulating those is futile.
mongoose704 1 year ago 3
@mongoose704 and if that's the case does government have a role in addressing/preventing such escalation or are they only responsible after the fact, if racial tensions lead to someone committing an act where one infringes upon someone else's liberties? it's just something for me to think about because frankly, i just don't know...with that said, ron paul 2012
wunderbeast 1 year ago
@wunderbeast No. I don't believe in pre-emptive war of any type. I don't believe in sacrificing liberty to protect it.
mongoose704 1 year ago 2
@mongoose704 thanks for your response. out of curiosity, what's the libertarian solution towards raising children? i understand that every parent has the right to raise his or her own kid but what if kids are taught immoral values or raised on junk food? my only concern is that the child never had a chance, which is the only reason i bring it up. or is it the position that families like anything else must learn by example from other upstanding families and not through force?
wunderbeast 1 year ago
@wunderbeast Actually libertarians boast much fewer solutions because we realize that we aren't smart enough to manage, run, or plan your life.
Let's look at it pragmatically. We commit a tremendous amount of legislation, money and resources to the war on drugs and people still use them about as much as they ever did. It isn't working. We're wasting money and resources and thus creating more misery. Sadly suffering is a reality in nature and government often compound it with interference
mongoose704 1 year ago 2
@mongoose704 Look at Education and Healthcare the two most heavily Government regulated entities that cost taxpayers the most and are failures.
quizerry 1 year ago
@mongoose704 to take it further, the free market would put less of a financial burden on struggling poor families, which in turn would raise their standard of living, which in turn will make the parents treat their children better. is my line of thinking correct?
wunderbeast 1 year ago
@wunderbeast recent studies are showing that there is much less of a relationship between income and domestic violence as previously thought, Mainly because those of higher income are actually less likely to be counted. Mainly due to their mobility. They rarely have to enter shelters or even contact law enforcement. They just split.
But I agree returning to the free market and abandoning the inflation of planned economies would make it easier for low income families to make ends meet.
mongoose704 1 year ago 2
@mongoose704 So, do you believe in the legalisation of same-sex marriage?
llTomlll 1 year ago
@llTomlll I believe the Federal Government has absolutely no right to define or redefine marriage. It needs to stay out of marriage.
On a personal level personal liberty is the only road to happiness so if two homosexuals want to marry and a church wants to marry them...
who am I to deny them? Two homosexuals getting married doesn't restrict my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
mongoose704 1 year ago 4
@mongoose704 Nicely put.
MrSamissane 1 year ago
@mongoose704 That's pretty much why Hate Crimes are bullshit, it's not a charge of the offense it's a charge of your personal opinions. Which I believe to be a huge "fuck you" to amendment numero uno
DosuZakuKin 1 year ago
@mongoose704 "Somebody here made a great point: Humans have the right to be racist."
Perhaps they have the right to be racist, but I still think it's in pretty damned poor taste to judge somebody based on their skin color, their religion, or whatever. I shun racists, but really, I would have to agree they have a right to exist. You can't legislate it out people.
fuzzywzhe 9 months ago
The word libertarian is virtually meaningless today. Everyone claims to be libertarian. Communists, fascists, neocons, corporatists, socialists, etc all claim to be libertarian today even though their philosophies are diametrically opposed to the classic meaning of the word. Of course they can claim to be because they first debased the language and changed the meaning of the word.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 Ayn Rand was correct in her criticism of the Big Tent nature of libertarianism. It has allowed those who are anti-thetic to individual liberty to hijack the movement, ala socialists and now neocons.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 yeah, even bill maher said he was a libertarian in real time. well, at least he sort of is when it comes to foreign policy.
wunderbeast 1 year ago
this seems like racism!!!
weightyglory12 1 year ago
People seem to forget racism goes both ways. Black, Latinos, Asians, and other minorities should have complete liberty to refuse whites.
STG44musikmeister 1 year ago
@STG44musikmeister
There are countless private businesses in America that are exclusive to Latinos, Asians and Blacks and denying others.
But whites? Hardly any. I don't call it reverse discrimination. It is discrimination period. Whites have to admit all but blacks, latinos and asians don't. In my town there are over twenty businesses that deny whites.
mongoose704 1 year ago 2
". . .There are countless private businesses in America that are exclusive to Latinos, Asians and Blacks and denying others. . .In my town there are over twenty businesses that deny whites. . . ."
Name them.
jfsfrnd 1 year ago
Ron Paul is the Man!!!!
Quiksilver209 1 year ago 2
im for ron paul! real change in the right direction!
isaanStyle55 1 year ago
unfortunately, ron paul, milton friedman, alan greenspan, ayn rand, nor ludwig von mises are libertarians. they are neo-classicals. classical liberalism is not the neoliberalism sold as libertarianism today. classical liberals had a deeper understanding best expressed by henry george in 1879.
jeepndesert 1 year ago
@jeepndesert the rockefeller foundation funded ludwig von mises and systematically suppressed the best-selling american economist, henry george.
jeepndesert 1 year ago
@jeepndesert Every single person on the list has fundamentally different viewpoints. To lump them together is basically like lumping George Bush with Ralph Nader
charleshoskinson 1 year ago
Segregation WAS almost exclusively by law.I once read the Woolworth manager told the Greensboro Boys he didn't object to them eating there,but it was illegal.
dlsofsetx 1 year ago
Paul/Paul 2012
sandythebear 1 year ago
Philosophical debate my balls. Are you saying that you'd be fine with a black couple pulling over at a gas station in the middle of the road and being denied access to the restroom because the owner is a racist? Come-fucking-on! There's no distinction between businesses and dwellings? Sure they are both private properties Ron Paul, the same way a kiwi and an eagle are both birds. One is public the other one is YOUR FUCKING HOUSE! What a bunch of loonies!
viniciusb 1 year ago
@viniciusb It is philosophical. Either you belive that government can step in where there are issues that many find objectionable, or you belive that in a free society that individuals can chose what to do and that its citizens will decide wether they condone it or not. You dont get rid of racism or drugs by legislation. You change it with attitudes, but that has to come from the people and not the government.
CortoMaltese86 1 year ago
@CortoMaltese86 I'm not a radical and I don't hava position as you do that delegates what I think about every issue. Drugs is something you do to yourself and one should have the right to do whatever they want to themselves but they should be also liable if it affects other people. You do get rid of racism through legislation, that's exactly what happened after 64, it started to fade away until 9/11 hit. People are supporting a law that racial profiles Mexicans. People, are fucking stupid.
viniciusb 1 year ago
@viniciusb You own a restaurant. Can I bring my gun into your store? Can I come adorned head to toe in KKK uniform? It's a public place after all?
TacoEqualsFtw 1 year ago
@TacoEqualsFtw how is it a public place if someone owns it
starwarsgg 1 year ago
@starwarsgg That's my point. People assert that you can't discriminate against skin color in your restaurant, but for some reason you can discriminate with respect to 1st amendment and 2nd amendment. It doesn't matter if the restaurant is downtown, it's still private, and the own can discriminate against whomever the fuck he wants.
TacoEqualsFtw 1 year ago
@viniciusb
Settle down and think a little before you get so emotional and weird. How long do you really think a gas station (or any other business) that denied blacks the option to use their facilities would stay in business today? And why would you want to patronize and contribute to the profits of a business who only serves certain people they don't like because they're forced to by law?
bazookafluke 1 year ago
@bazookafluke No, I won't settle down, not on this issue. Yes, I am very passionate about it, and I'd hate to see your position become a reality. How long do you think a gas station that denied service to blacks survived in the past? Oh, forgive me, we are so much more evolved today. The current LAW, forces individuals to interact and that interaction helps get rid of racism, it belittles racism and provides a system where victims of racism can defend themselves.
viniciusb 1 year ago
@viniciusb A private business is not public. I think that's pretty obvious. You have the right to deny anyone access to your home for any reason. Similarly you have the right to deny anyone access to your business for any reason. It's not that hard to understand.
AngryPenguin27 1 year ago
Great point, I think Ron explains things a lot clearer than Rand, and it helps that Colmes is informed on the issue and calls it a philosophical question about the role of government instead of a racial issue.
HarryNRubin 1 year ago
@HarryNRubin Two of my favorite quotes by Ayn Rand on the issue of racism:
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism ... [the notion] that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."
"Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue—and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism."
She is very true on both points.
HarryNRubin 1 year ago
Junior is no senior. Senior knows how to handle the hard questions with grace and gives off peaceful vibes. Rand seems to get more easily frustrated/angry, and it shows. Although, Ron use to flip out back in his day, as can be seen on some of the older clips.
psychawareness 1 year ago
Man, Ron Paul would be an amazing President.
larrywalkerntbi 1 year ago 39
@larrywalkerntbi Sure, in 1963 when his positions were an improvement.
viniciusb 1 year ago
yeah just imagine... i can't imagine an excuse for war coming out of his mouth...
he just makes the current ones in charge seem inhuman
megamorphg 1 year ago
I am glad Alan Colmes is smart enough to recognize this is a philosophical debate and not an issue of racism!
VictoryCough 1 year ago 2
@VictoryCough Very true. Classy not to take a cheap shot that draws the attention away from the real discussion.
larrywalkerntbi 1 year ago
@VictoryCough This is not a philosophical debate you freaking child. This is about real fucking signs reading NO COLORED PEOPLE ALLOWED. Do you have any idea how many social and psychological issues this would bring back to our society? If you don't, then read some books and watch some documentaries on the issue or just ask your dad if he's not a freaking racist either. What are you people fucking 15?
viniciusb 1 year ago
@viniciusb
You might be missing the point here, viniciusb. The position Rand and Ron are taking is indeed philosophic. They believe that private businesses are still private property. They are not public property like parks, roads, buses/trains are. They also believe grassroots movements like Dr. MLK's efforts, which inspired millions, is far more effective at uprooting racism than government mandates. What would you prefer, government force, or inspiration from a captivating figure like MLK?
mthaker 1 year ago
@viniciusb people are already allowed to refuse service to whom ever they want. this is not an important debate at all. go ahead and let people put up what ever racist sign they want on there business. how good do you think that business will do? it probably wont last after the media flames it and people stop going there. this isnt rocket science little man
fupasack2 1 year ago
@fupasack2 No, they are not allowed to refuse service on the basis of racism. How good do I think that business would do? Have you heard of history? Have you seen the growing racist sentiment in this country? That business, would do extremely well if placed in the right city and state even TODAY. The problem about the media, big man, is that there was also the side that supported segregation. In fact, that side is still alive and well. You are right, this isn't rocket science.
viniciusb 1 year ago
@viniciusb you have to be dumb as mud to think that a business that advertises as being racist would do well. you do realize we have a black president right? and even if it did, so what? government is not going to change the way people think and feel. and yes businesses can refuse service TO ANYONE at anytime and they DONT HAVE TO HAVE A REASON OR EXPLANATION. let that sink in a bit....
fupasack2 1 year ago
@fupasack2 Yeah, I'm the crazy one who thinks there is a big portion of this country (tea baggers) anxiously waiting to support this kind of business. We do have a black president, but 100% of the presidents were white males before Obama. LOL, "Government is not going to change the way people think and feel." You are so funny! Again, they can silently refuse service as soon as they don't claim racism, post racist signs or kick black patrons out of their business at gun point.
viniciusb 1 year ago
@viniciusb just because a country has a history of racism, does not mean the offspring will. people dont clone themselves when they reproduce. having a black president proves this(sadly, not much else though). your basing your thoughts on assumptions. people need rights because governments always fail. I have the right to be racist at any time I want, so do businesses, this a silly "debate", as paul said
fupasack2 1 year ago 4
@viniciusb cala a boca ae negão o que que vc quer discutir com os americano tu nasceu no brasil seu merda, se bota no teu lugar seu perdido! vc é muito babaca fica ai discutindo com os gringo! vc é um otário perdedor de tempo (y) só pq se formou no CCAA e foi pro estados unidos tá achando que pode falar alguma merda! seu lixo!!!
imthemanbro 1 year ago
@viniciusb Vini, you're the only one acting like a child. Your emotional opinionated comments reflect nothing of real sane value.
It is Philosophical, and to say it's not is ignorant on your part. Libertarians are not racist, as it directly conflicts with the ideology.
The point was, whether government has the right to interfere in such issues, which they don't. Either you completely stand by liberty or you don't. You can't pick and choose.
xKenseixX 1 year ago
@viniciusb The portion of the Civil Rights that many libertarians openly criticize is outlawing of discrimination on private property that happens to be a business. It's the definition of a philosophical debate. You either have voluntary exchange or your do not. You can't take away real rights to create new rights and eating in a privately owned restaurant is not a right!
For some reason you assume discrimination based on race would be wide spread! We are a much more liberal society than that!
VictoryCough 1 year ago
Stop the BS these political guys must think we are stupid! Go Ron bust thier balls!!
PATRIOT1835 1 year ago
you can praise capitalism for the 12 hour work day. How would you like to work for 1/20 or less of the money your labor generates for me? Yes, you wouldn't have minimum wage and overtime without socialist labor laws.
thefredsays 1 year ago
Ron Paul is a great advocate for freedom. Help defend freedom and the United States in the online world by playing Erepublik.
luvsronpaul 1 year ago
Coombs was really professional in this interview. I congratulate him.... I have seen otherwise.
Healthport 1 year ago
Imbed and Share this! This point of view escapes people, the comforting grip of federal intervention is going to lead to a second rate country for our children. Use common sense, govern the same way.
ostancrider 1 year ago 3
To me, the Founding Fathers failed to realize that the nation they formed as a republic based on the ancient principles found in Athens, Rome and Carthage decades, centuries and a millenia later transformed into a global corporate/military republican empire which dominates half the globe. If the United States collapses sometime in the future, it would be a happy occasion for the planet.
lordofthemanor25 1 year ago
Rand should have handled that situation like his daddy did right here. It was simply something brought up to discredit and what they were discussing was 5 decades old. And it simply played on the many blacks who are dying to 'fit in' and white people who feel eternally guilty about things they had nothing to do with. Emotion driven society. We're the only minority that as a whole has this problem. I still support this man and his son. Peace to all. Go Ron/Rand Paul!
eyeonwashparish 1 year ago 3
He handled that much better than his son. They would be in trouble if they tried to pull that stuff on Ron Paul because every time Ron Paul replies to an accusation people learn something about freedom.
Probesoul 1 year ago
what did they name that statue in new york of the woman holding the torch?....its the statue of something........
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82 Delicious pizza. The leaning statue of Pizza.
d0861 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul truly has a Patriotic Spirit living inside him...Please type.......Marty Raybon......in the search box and check out this Patriotic video also, then please share it with all your friends
APatrioticSong 1 year ago
Ron Paul 2012!! Congrats to Rand on the primary! These are the fellows that America needs to be running things right now!
RoyalSweeetness 1 year ago
I give mad props to Alan Colmes for giving Ron PAul the light of day, and making it very clear that Paul is not a racist, and letting him express his views without slander. RON PAUL 2012
frilloman828 1 year ago
Ron Paul rocks...it is a damn shame the rest of our politicians are dopes.
agostomi 1 year ago