Ron Paul is not one of those. There's another government called the state government. You mix federal and state. Paul wants the states to have their powers back. Politics by it's nature is a complex construction. Paul is not naive.
@XOmniverse Ethics? This is not a question of ethics. It's about power and the distribution of power in a design to avoid it's abuse. The most minimal form of power is the individual. It's called liberty. The protection of liberty was the foundation of the U.S. system of governmen--the preservation of individual liberty and local jurisdiction. The more centralized the government, the more potential for abuse against individual liberty. Click on my name to go to my channel and watch my favorites.
@XOmniverse Of course, there are ethical questions in all things. Unless you're ready to start arguing that individual liberty is unethical, then it's besides the point and just a sophistic exercise to introduce it into the discussion. A lot of fundamentalist libertarian purists argue for no centralized government. Well, if we were living in Eden, sure, but unfortunately, there are not so good people and not so good actions in this world and conflicts of interest.
@tryptala I don't think any anarcho-capitalist framework has ever been grounded in the assumption that people are innately good. I hear this argument often but its not grounded in anything but an unproven, false assertion about the premises anarcho-capitalists assume.
@XOmniverse Good? Conflicts of interests gray the area of good. Human psychology is a grand shmorgasborg of types and psychoses. Nothing is simple. What you need might conflict with something someone else needs. That other guy, or you may be psychologically deranged or just impatient or greedy. Humans aggregate into collectives of power. No centralized government returns us to tribes and tribal activities, like warring and stealing.
@XOmniverse Some of those problems and challenges are best addressed by a LIMITED central government. There are questions of efficacy, expediency, and diplomacy which a central government is BETTER able to, in some cases, attend to.
@XOmniverse Well, now you're slipping off into the bizarre world of hypotheticals and equivocations as you try to ponder what would have happened if there hadn't been a central government, or there weren't one now. A very muddy exercise since it cannot include the unpredictable which is one of the dominate forces in the history of mankind in general. Well, shall we play, what would China do if there suddenly wasn't a U.S. government, or what would happen during a disease pandemic?
Argue to the extremes and all you do is wreck both sides of the argument in a stalemate. Every ideology has its fundamentalist religious radical wackos.
If Libertarianism is gaining ground, you'll have to explain the last election. If anything is gaining ground, it's blind stupidity and paranoia and an inability to think politically at all beyond the absurd dichotomy of Republican and Democrat. There are very few Libertarian thinkers left in the U.S. What's gaining ground with Ron Paul is his ability to pinpoint the problems and corrupt institutions, not his philosophical elucidations. People hear that they are being screwed and respond.
You tell them who's screwing them and then you can lead them with clubs in their hands. That's what's called liberty. Everything else is polemics which will put 90% to sleep. As long as they can pursue their desires and feel secure in their home, most people don't think much about the philosophy which makes that happen and will suffice with whatever status quo. Now is such a glaring example, and fascism will creep up and snatch them in their sleep.
@Sivels I'd like to know what a libertarian society is, and what and who's politics are deeply irrational? Printing money, creating more astronomical debt in order to address a monumental problem caused by astronomical debt is about as irrational as it gets. No kind of pure political society is going to arise with any President. That's not how our system works. The Constitution--checks, balances. Congress will still be overwhelmed by Republicrats. No President has that kind of power, thankfully.
@tryptala That's great... The constitution is just a piece of paper with some good ideas in it.. Other things are not so good..
Anyway, a libertarian society is one that doesn't have a proactive state, but rather a night watchman state seaprated 100% from the economy that deals only with protecting the individual. Basically a society based on volyntarism and laissez-faire capitalism.
@Sivels The Constitution is just a piece of paper--that's a retarded sophomoric statement. When you get pulled up before the dictator in chains, tell him the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Some not so good--yeah, that's why there's another piece of paper called the Bill of Rights and things called Amendments. Night watchman state--can't figure that one out. Separated 100% from the economy--a ridiculous statement. You simplify to absurdity as do many naive fundamentalist libertarians.
You get people to revolt with some impassioned speeches and letting them know they're being screwed in some way, and then after the revolution you start to bandy about with ideas as you reconstruct a society. The ideas are an afterthought to emotional action and are usually only argued and expanded upon amongst a small group of the power brokers who emerge post-revolution.
You suffer from Sophistry. Vote for Ron Paul. End the FED, end Fractional Reserve Lending, Abolish the personal income tax, end the empire. It takes a character to move a revolution forward. We'd all still be part of Greater Britain if it weren't for the small group of revolutionaries rousing the populace and the reason they each wanted to raise a revolt may have nothing to do with ideas. As usual, a lot of it was just about money.
BS. That's not how politics works. Politics is character based. Characters move people to act, not ideas. Gandhi, MLK, "the Founding Fathers," Reagan, Roosevelt, Caesar, Jesus, etc., etc., etc. This is an old argument in historiography and the notion that the spread of ideas effect change is weak. Christianity was spread during the Middle Ages, yet it was feudal. It requires the action of characters to make people act on ideas, and often the ideas are simply a tool to make people act.
Brilliant video. The reverence for the Constitution among some Ron Paul supporters is a rediculous appeal to authority. The Constitution is not a principle. Freedom is. Because freedom is more of a fact than an opinion, and we can extrapolate a just government from a principle of freedom. Unfortunately that government has never existed, surprisingly, because the anarchist idea that no man has authority over another, and that we are free to defend that condition, is an easy idea to understand
Sum: the ideas that would oppose current abuses are not in wide enough circulation for fundamental cultural change, which would precipitate a change of regime beyond what we currently have.
Thesis: the man ≠ the ideas which he is put a representative of. Without the ideas, Ron Paul wouldn't be. But he is, and thus the ideas as well. The objective is cultural-political regime change, not Ron Paul. Thus: spread the ideas, not proselytizing mere 'support' for one man.
How can you discern that Ron Paul (or anyone) is the result of a cause and not part of the cause? Surely you can see how 'cause and effect' are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Id say if we compare the relative freedom of the USA and the conservative forces that were forced on people who lived under the soviet regime there was much more individualism in Soviet Russia than in the US.
Even the US's political structure is very rigid with only 2 parties which are obviously not accurately representing many of the citizens the US.
If you think on the edges of the political and social spectrum you are bound to feel us is very diverse in thought,but is it?
I don't think that the only idea in American culture is "bowing to icons." There's still a strong sense that people should live life their own way instead of following a preset path.
That being said, its a cultural trait in dire need of a renaissance.
i agree with him here, America is generally thinks of itself as the country where anyone willing to work hard can make it. So in that sence it is a trait
You support a man who is AGAINST financial aid for college students and wants to outlaw abortion? You need to look at MORE than just immigration when you choose a candidate to support. I understand his immigration issues but in case you haven't noticed he is really religious. I can't believe you're an Atheist. You've got to be kidding me!
I think your trying to hard... libertarianism has been around for a while... but most people where drawn to Ron Paul not for his libertarian views but for his brutal honesty and vast knowledge, and how that completely contrasts from the rest of the candidates.
Most people are pretty damn simple minded when it comes to elections... your suggesting moving the focus away from simply supporting a candidate to supporting a philosophy... that's too much for most people to get enthusiastic about.
Effect contributes to our causes as causes are to effects. Supporting liberty in the mist of a presidential campaign will not draw as much attention as the support of the effect or representation of a particular cause.
But if your goal is to establish liberty, then you should draw attention to liberty. The fact that it's easier to draw attention with something else does nothing to help that goal.
Totally agree with you here, and I'm so glad. Ron Paul said this himself even and I think it's very important that people understand that. That's why folks should join the Campaign for Liberty and/or other groups, or even just do stuff with friends and such, to spread the message of freedom and carry the torch for the cause of liberty.
One thing you don't take into account is that an effect such as the Ron Paul revolution can also be a cause at the same time. A lot of this has to do with the much greater exposure libertarian ideas are getting with him as a presidential candidate, but also people are seeing that libertarianism is popular.
The idea of the constitution as a political ideal is much easier to sell to people who are not hardcore libertarians, and can be a stepping stone to greater understanding.
the deification of ron paul is absolutely ridiculous. ron paul does not have ANY original ideas at all people. he is just a reflection of previously developed ideas.
Anyone who "deifies" Dr Paul is not paying attention. Paul will be the first to tell you he is merely a student of liberty. But he is one of the bravest, most tireless & in terms of ears reached, he is hands down the greatest disseminator of the philosophy of liberty ever. So much of the carping & back-biting from anarchists & libertarians seems to me to be jealousy. When one of you guys is on national TV telling the world about Lysander Spooner (for the first time EVER! think about that!)...
...or destroying Rudy 9iu11iani, you'll get lots of accolades too. Think of the tens of millions of foreigners who saw proof that we who live in America are not all psychotic scum like the degenerates he was standing next to on the stage. Anarchists may still have leaders; moral leaders. Dr. Paul IS THE moral leader of the mental construct known as the United States. Don't think that this is a bunch of sap either. Morals are the key, not systems. Solid morals are the basis of a free society.
"Solid morals are the basis of a free society." Ron Paul's morals are logically inconsistent. He claims to be a proponent of nonaggression, but his stance on taxation and government itself contradict this idea.
The reason why consistent proponents of liberty, morality, and free market economics have never had the opportunity to deliver their message directly to the public is because media outlets are not going to put an anarchist on the air. It is as simple as that. Although Ron Paul is correct on many issues, with the exception of his very authoritarian views on "illegal immigration" and the very existence of government of course, the personality cult which has arisen around him is ridiculous.
Damned Youtube, I posted a response days ago, & it didn't take.
What stance on taxation?
He's not an anarchist, for many he's kind of like marijuana, a "gateway", ha ha.
That's right you won't be aired, that's why Dr Paul is so extremely valuable.
His stance on immigration is totally understandable. There IS a concept called the United States believed in by nearly everyone, even if you & I know it is a lamentable abstraction. Until the welfare state is demolished there will be an "immi..
...gration problem". A move towards a free society will have to be slow one. One thing at a time. Dr Paul knows that eliminating the welfare state would cure the "immigration problem". You believe in borders for your property right? Hypothetically, if we built a free society, wouldn't you believe in borders regarding criminals? Any people from outside who came uninvited would be forcibly thrown out.
Personality cult? That is a gross overstatement. There are heroes in the world. He is one.
The only significant borders that are both moral and necessary for civilization to exist are property borders. You have the right to free association.
No. His stance on immigration is utterly incomprehensible and completely inconsistent with any philosophy relating to liberty. If the issue is how "illegal immigrants" benefit from the welfare state , then Ron Paul should be discussing why the welfare state is also immoral and should be abolished.
Paul's stance on immigration is not inconsistent. His point is that you can't have a welfare state and immigration at the same time because you won't be able to afford to support the new immigrants. Getting rid of welfare measures would alleviate this and mean you could allow much more immigration.
"Allowing" immigration is also inconsistent with liberty: if I'm a free american, I should be allowed to house, employ, or even just invite over to my house, anybody- and unless they are a physical threat, Ron Paul has no right to stop them at the border.
If he wants to, he can campaing on denying non citizens free healthcare and welfare, just not preventing them from visiting me at my house (100 million of them, if I feel like it).
I think you mean NOT allowing immigration is inconsistent with liberty.
Anyways, the point from a practical standpoint is that you simply can't afford to have lots of immigration when you have lots of welfare measures. Getting rid of those welfare measures would mean you wouldn't have to keep people out.
The use of the word "allow" implies that it is a decision to be made, by government, based on practical considerations such as the one you mentioned. It is not.
If you wanted to be finacially conservative, you could simply deny immigrants both welfare and citizenship.That's fine. You don't need to stop them at the border or prevent them from working once they're here.
My main point is: Getting rid of welfare shouldn't precede immigration reform.We can start an "open border" policy right now.
Given your first paragraph, then yes getting rid of welfare SHOULD precede immigration reform, otherwise you won't be able to afford having that many immigrants. If you deny them citizenship and welfare I agree you should be able to let them in but that isn't what's happening politically. People keep voting for them to get services and to be subsidized. It would be more practical to get rid of welfare and the effects would probably be better as well, and you wouldn't need to keep anyone out.
I don't really know Ron Paul's stance on immigration, because after I found out he's religious and anti abortion-rights, I knew it didn't matter for me: I couldn't sanction that.
However, it seems to me that opposing immigration based on some wrong that we will do later (give them welfare), is dishonest: if he gets elected, and allows immigrants to come here and work legally, couldn't he then prevent them from being given welfare?
I think you're misunderstanding my first paragraph: I mean house them myself, in exchange for rent, not the gov.
I'm certainly not in favor of any welfare, or even any form of taxation.
I just don't think linking welfare to immigration is moral: I see no difference between preventing immigration and deporting welfare recipient americans based on that argument. If you are practical, why not replace bad americans with better mexicans?(or indians, they're techy) That should work, right?
And I didn't "link" welfare to immigration. The fact is that they are receiving benefits like "free" public education, medical care without having to pay back, etc.
Those are things that shouldn't be allowed even to our own citizens. It's against freedom and therefore shouldn't be allowed except under the MOST dire circumstances.
I'm saying I'm against welfare measures and they're one thing that prevent us from being able to afford more immigration.
Well "abortion rights" is controversial because not everyone is sure when a human becomes a person. Some folks believe a human is a person after they're born, some believe after 6 months, folks like me believe all humans are people and therefore you can only kill in self-defense (like in rape or when it's a health issues and such).
His thing with that was that despite him being against it, it should be dealt with at the state level, never the federal level. So each state will have differences
I like that you are voicing these concerns and insight.
I'm not sure why you are spending as much time as you are back-biting toward a LOT- if not ALL the same type of ideas you want to be seen manifested in the 'real life.'
It seems like there is an element of 'ego' here... like you are just arguing to be 'right,' for the sake of proving yourself 'right.' While I understand the basis for your argument- wouldn't your time be better spent not trying to attack support Ron Paul- Ego in the way?
you should see the people who are strictly against him(not you, but), now they are psychotic. people that say they want the federal income tax so that they can get a big check every year?? haha.. that is about a third or less of what they took out to begin with.
I disagree the man Ron Paul has nothing to do with his appeal and that it is all about the ideals of Libertarianism. His integrity, intelligence and manner are all intangibles that add to his appeal. Bricks don't make the wall people do.
If that didn't make sense: think of the bricks in the wall as Libertarian ideals. Bricks just sitting there being idolized are fine if you idolize bricks, but when someone mixes the mortar, sets the markers and lines, builds a foundation, and then adds their own personal touches here and there; the bricks come alive to serve people, not the other way around.
RP is a mason who has the mind to get our wall (country) back on its original foundation. Good, real change not placebo change.
I agree. It's not just what he says, because I don't trust politicians. Ron Paul is obviously honest, due to what he says being attacked repeatedly. If he was lying, he would be the "most" popular. If you get what I mean.
it reminds me of what ayn rand said. you cant educate poeple through a political campaign. it has to start in universities. liberty has power enimies unfortunatly. and i think the most important aspect of Ron Paul's campaign is bringing like minded freemdom loving libertarians together. it has helped me solidify my values so it cant be a complete waste. lol
Ok Dude, I am coming at this from a hard core libertarian/anarcho-capitalist POV. I respect Rand, her aristotelian roots and John Locke but it seems to me that you're missing two things.
1. Ron Paul is a more effective vector for spreading libertarian ideas than anything yet tried. Yes his popularity is an effect, but it is also a cause.
2. The NAP John Locke, Rand and her arguments and finer points of economics are not effective hooks for getting people to accept libertarianism.
you know what Socrates said right? people who think they know something means they actually really know nothing. you are not open to new ideas and you simply write them off as irrelevant, that good sir will lead to the death of mankind. anyone who would be persuaded by this circle talking deserves the hell you envision.
i can see ur point... but right now, the most effective way to spread the message is to help get Ron Paul elected President. Theirfor, become incredibly influencial, and do all that, change society....
if he looses,, then there should be a movement to change the culture....
have ppl more active in local congressional elections, have true constitutionalists be Reps and Senators, after all, the Legislative is "sopposed to be" the strongest branch...
Supporting Ron Paul is spreading the discussion of Liberty. His supporters are communication & researching, educating themselves & others, and in the end, helping liberty.
Ron Paul is significant because he lives by his principles, and he is a common connection for a great many people to communicate and work towards change(s).
A critical thinking person can conclude without variation that Ron Paul is the only candidate worthy of the presidency. I challenge you to present a valid argument against Ron Paul and to produce a better alternative from the current pool of candidates.
What is your alternative? Positive affirmations that one is liberated by virtue of his declaration? You're are born free1 Freedom is not a choice. The question is, are there political forces that prevent you from exercising your inalienable right to live freely? If so, what do you do? Our founding fathers said to stand up against tyranny!
Why don't you just say what you want to say. What is the alternative to the political process? Are you suggesting that we forcefully overthrow the federal government?
I googled agorism, but I don't see how you can have a free market society when the government punishes you for it. In order for it to work you would have to have many others involved doing it together perhaps even their own communities but eventually you would have a violent standoff when the government tried to raid and imprison your community. It will take a bloody violent revolution to have a state free society, and anyone who is not willing to fight is not a true anarchist in my opinion.
Ron Paul's message is not limited to the libertarian ideology. It is also the defense against tyranny from the new world order scum. The crackdown on our rights with the "Patriot" Act, the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Act, and PD 51. The end of Posse Comitatus and Habeas Corpus are the intetions of these horrific actions. Have you heard of HR 1955? This is the mother of all attacks on the U.S. Constitution.
Your premise is baseless. You assert that Ron Paul supporters are illegitimate, because they are not supporting libertarianism. Sir, they are supporting the most visible articulate libertarian, while he is running for president. They use him to spread the ideas of liberty. He is our megaphone to the world. You already know this and that is why you invalidated your argument at the end of your very futile attempt.
Support Ron Paul. Go, do all this shit that you just said that wouldn't work and you just explained why, but I - DO HAVE AN "ARGUMENT."
This is an election. We are supporting a candidate that represents the ideas of not only "freedom," but peace, fiscal conservatism, civil rights, national sovereignty, and foreign relations. It is not a single, "Libertarian" goal.
oh man... THANK YOU. I have been telling people that Ron Paul is a RESULT not a CAUSE for a long time now.
MARKET DEMAND FOR LESS GOVERNMENT => RON PAUL
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
I agree RP is an effect. However he is also a vehicle for getting ideas of freedom in to the population and drawing people toward freedom. Long after the presidential election the value of the RP campaign could be measured by how many people are drawn to a non agression principle through exposure to RP and thereby Libertarianism.
Why are all of you complimenting him on this video? XOmniverse isn't responsible for it's content; he is but a mere carrier of an idea eminating from the great intellect of the great beyond.
I agree with you. Ron Paul is popular not because of himself (actually he's quite unexciting) but his ideas are what are amazing and exciting. He just came out at the right time. And Ron Paul supporters (the ones I talk to, at least) all see this as a MOVEMENT and not just a political campaign. We're out there to get Ron Paul elected, of course, but were also there to spread the message of liberty!
Funamentally agree. However... the bulk of citizens rationally do not invest the time you have to understand these matters based on the wieght of one vote. What they are looking for is not to understand the workings but to be able to choose a finished product. Like when you buy a car you want it for what it will do and you don't invest the time to find how or why it does it. RP is a vehicle for ideas of freedom.
I believe the Constitution is the closest thing to libertarianism in terms of a pragmatic approach. It seems more likely than a vast tract of land with no government whatsoever.
16th ammendment? The constitution is a reasonably libertarian set of ideas but they are just a set of ideas and are not necessarily the one right constitution ... it just happens to be the one that exists and was once accepted. It would be a step forward (or back) for liberty. But that does not make it ideal.
Supreme court has ruled more than once that 16th gave no new powers of taxation. The term "income" is not the same as wages in exchange for labor. It pertains to profits from business ventures.
What I think you're overlooking is that Ron Paul is powerful and convincing voice for liberty. Our constitution is one of the most influential documents in all of history for spreading the ideas of liberty. It's whole purpose was to *limit* the power and scope of government, a concept entirely alien to the world at the time. Ron Paul himself has done more in the last year to spread the ideas of liberty than the rest of libertarians put together in the last 10.
Have you ever heard of a positive feedback effect? Libertarianism used to be a significant part of the conservative movement, but no longer. Neoconservatives have stamped out all traces of libertarianism within the party. In a 2 party system, one must "convert" one of the major parties to a particular philosophy to win.
Great video! I'm currently working for the Ron Paul campaign and completely agree. The ideas are what is important. Ron Paul says this himself all the time. I think the whole fanboy syndrome amongst many supporters is counterproductive and stupid. Maybe it is the leftover effects of people in this country being programed for years to worship their political leaders. I use Paul to introduce the ideas of liberty not to say how this one man is the answer to all of our problems.
That's an interesting interpretation of what's going on, but I think the ideas of liberty can only come from one mindset, (like your example, "x"), and to our mindsets we are bound for life, usually. Young people of our day, with modern education, are taught in such a way that liberty is understood, and is a part of the mindset of the average young person. So, as the older generations die out and the young'uns grow up, liberty comes.
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays... Might be good reading for you. I think you are missing the point due to your classifying in general, instead of on issues. Ron Paul is very much an Austrian economics driven candidate. His son's name is Rand....
People were made to be free. Freedom will not create a perfect world. Just the best possible world. Freedom is the solution to the human condition. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who understands this. ALL the others tell you that if you give them power(that is, give up your power/freedom) they will fix all life's problems for you. Which makes them either fools or power hungry liars.
Do you think Ron Paul is getting the support he's getting because of, say, his Austrian economic outlook, or his anti-war views? Many of the online supporters I see backing this guy seem totally clueless about his domestic economic views.
You're right about this, and Paul is certainly exploiting their ignorance. But I wonder if there is anything necessarily wrong with this tactic. Its not like these liberals have a right to institute their domestic agenda; so whats the problem with tricking them into putting an Austrian Econ-sympathizer into power?
Morally, I dont see anything wrong with using ideological fraud to defend against ideologically-motivated state violence, but tactically (read: philosophically), I have my doubts.
The one practical thing I see wrong with this (apart from the moral problem in exploiting other peoples' ignorance--but, hey, he's a politician, isn't that what they do professionally?) is that if in the 1-in-10 million-light-year chance that he gets in office, and then begins to cut the welfare state, most of the anti-war dependent fools who put him in office will rebel. In the final analysis, you can't _really_ put one over on people, especially when you actually try to implement you program.
He wouldn't be exploiting their ignorance in order to, say, sell them products they don't need or to feed a superiority-complex; he'd simply be doing it to protect his (and your) rights. It's analogous to gaining the confidence of your kidnapper so that you can grab the gun from him when his guard is down.
Also, you're right, the (small, dedicated minority of liberal) people would rebel; but isn't that what the police and Nat'l Guard is for?
A lot of people know of his Austrian economic views. He's talked about his economic views in debates, on Leno and on the countless YouTube videos. If you support Ron Paul you know what his ideas are.
Frankly, I don't even think Ron Paul (or any libertarian for that matter) knows what his ideas are. I think he knows what the Founding Father's ideas were, but I doubt he could provide a compelling, sophisticated defense of them.
...Sure, people know he's for the gold standard, but alot of people like him just b/c he's against Iraq or for drug legalization. That's b/c these people are superficial. Once President Paul started actually dismantling the welfare state, they'd cry betrayal and say that that wasn't what they meant when they voted for him.
Because like with every gang you don't want to give them anything to be upset about. Just like you would try your hardest to not upset the Mafia you don't want the State to be upset.
Even the Mafia don't want to upset the State, that is how big powers that gang has.
I think that Ron Paul has been the vehicle for many libertarian converts. Though he does still support a state system, he is a bit more palatable to the average American than, say, an anarchist. Once we get the cultural to change back to the constitution, anarchy might seem a bit more palatable. In this way, he could be looked at as a means to an end, even though it might be contradictory. Middle America walks in baby steps.
Just about perfect. I'm still supporting Ron Paul & doing everything I CAN on a local level to spread the message of freedom & liberty & the dangers of our Two Party System. If everyone who is supporting Ron Paul had an equal drive to simply write letters to the local paper & talk to the people around them, I really think that the sleeping giant that is Libertarian America would awaken.
Ron Paul's unusual popularity is the result of two things. First, average people in this country are starting to sense just how radical and just how deadly the socialist Left and ascist Right really are. Fewer thinking people are willing to continue to dismiss them as "pinkos" or "practical."
The second reason is that Ron Paul is a much more admirable invididual than any of the flakes that the Libertarians have coughed up in the past. There's a reason why he's running as a Republican.
You vote in self defence so that your message can get out and "contaminate" enough of the capita before government starts becoming violent.
If violence breaks out, I doubt much good will yield as a result. Doing everything to eliminate a violent revolution in order for the evolution to be permitted to take place is worth a vote in my opinion.
What I'm trying to say is that by voting you're supporting that system. If nobody voted, then the system would fail. Now of course in our fun little f-ed up world the people on the top would simply start shooting us, so it wouldn't work very well in practice, but I still don't want to contribute to the violence by voting for someone, however indirect that contribution is. I contribute enough to it just going about my daily business.
Also, I agree that "restoring the constitution" has nothing to do, directly, with libertarian thought, and many people support it because it sounds good, not realizing how limited the scope of the national government is, in a strict interpretation. But there *is* a reason Ron Paul calls himself "the champion of the constitution" and also identifies as a libertarian.
I think you're missing the power of the feedback loop that is pop culture because of its apparent shallowness. This is understandable, but I'm quite sure more people have become familiar with the non-aggression principle through Dr. Paul's efforts than yours. On the other hand, I do hope a lot of "paulites" see your videos and perhaps start using slogans about the non-aggression principle ;)
Of course he's an effect. He says it himself all the time in response to questions like "why do you think you're so popular?". He's also a useful tool in introducing libertarian ideals to people who think they already know what the word means, or who disregard third parties outright.
I'm still going to vote for Ron Paul though. He has a secret plan to colonize Mars. Earth is boring. It's time we got off this rock. Ron Paul 2008! Go Mars!
XO - what do you do for a living? You should make a career teaching and writing about this stuff. It's clear that you're an active reader and you're an excellent speaker as well.
Good is taught, and there are many not so good teachers.
tryptala 1 year ago
Ron Paul is not one of those. There's another government called the state government. You mix federal and state. Paul wants the states to have their powers back. Politics by it's nature is a complex construction. Paul is not naive.
tryptala 1 year ago
@tryptala Do you claim that something can be unethical for a federal government to do but ethical for a state government to do?
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse Ethics? This is not a question of ethics. It's about power and the distribution of power in a design to avoid it's abuse. The most minimal form of power is the individual. It's called liberty. The protection of liberty was the foundation of the U.S. system of governmen--the preservation of individual liberty and local jurisdiction. The more centralized the government, the more potential for abuse against individual liberty. Click on my name to go to my channel and watch my favorites.
tryptala 1 year ago
@tryptala So things like liberty and distribution of power have nothing to do with ethics?
Have you ever questioned whether we even need a centralized government?
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse Of course, there are ethical questions in all things. Unless you're ready to start arguing that individual liberty is unethical, then it's besides the point and just a sophistic exercise to introduce it into the discussion. A lot of fundamentalist libertarian purists argue for no centralized government. Well, if we were living in Eden, sure, but unfortunately, there are not so good people and not so good actions in this world and conflicts of interest.
tryptala 1 year ago
@tryptala I don't think any anarcho-capitalist framework has ever been grounded in the assumption that people are innately good. I hear this argument often but its not grounded in anything but an unproven, false assertion about the premises anarcho-capitalists assume.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse Good? Conflicts of interests gray the area of good. Human psychology is a grand shmorgasborg of types and psychoses. Nothing is simple. What you need might conflict with something someone else needs. That other guy, or you may be psychologically deranged or just impatient or greedy. Humans aggregate into collectives of power. No centralized government returns us to tribes and tribal activities, like warring and stealing.
tryptala 1 year ago
@XOmniverse Some of those problems and challenges are best addressed by a LIMITED central government. There are questions of efficacy, expediency, and diplomacy which a central government is BETTER able to, in some cases, attend to.
tryptala 1 year ago
@tryptala There is no empirical data to support that claim. The history of the United States is, if anything, a counter argument to it.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse Well, now you're slipping off into the bizarre world of hypotheticals and equivocations as you try to ponder what would have happened if there hadn't been a central government, or there weren't one now. A very muddy exercise since it cannot include the unpredictable which is one of the dominate forces in the history of mankind in general. Well, shall we play, what would China do if there suddenly wasn't a U.S. government, or what would happen during a disease pandemic?
tryptala 1 year ago
Argue to the extremes and all you do is wreck both sides of the argument in a stalemate. Every ideology has its fundamentalist religious radical wackos.
tryptala 1 year ago
@tryptala What do you mean by "argue to the extremes?" What if logic seems to inevitably lead to an "extreme" conclusion?
XOmniverse 1 year ago
If Libertarianism is gaining ground, you'll have to explain the last election. If anything is gaining ground, it's blind stupidity and paranoia and an inability to think politically at all beyond the absurd dichotomy of Republican and Democrat. There are very few Libertarian thinkers left in the U.S. What's gaining ground with Ron Paul is his ability to pinpoint the problems and corrupt institutions, not his philosophical elucidations. People hear that they are being screwed and respond.
tryptala 1 year ago
You tell them who's screwing them and then you can lead them with clubs in their hands. That's what's called liberty. Everything else is polemics which will put 90% to sleep. As long as they can pursue their desires and feel secure in their home, most people don't think much about the philosophy which makes that happen and will suffice with whatever status quo. Now is such a glaring example, and fascism will creep up and snatch them in their sleep.
tryptala 1 year ago
It takes leaders to bang the gongs and wake them up and get them moving.
tryptala 1 year ago
@tryptala A libertarian society will not arise through the (deeply irrational) politics, and certainly not through a Ron Paul presidency...
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels I'd like to know what a libertarian society is, and what and who's politics are deeply irrational? Printing money, creating more astronomical debt in order to address a monumental problem caused by astronomical debt is about as irrational as it gets. No kind of pure political society is going to arise with any President. That's not how our system works. The Constitution--checks, balances. Congress will still be overwhelmed by Republicrats. No President has that kind of power, thankfully.
tryptala 1 year ago
@tryptala That's great... The constitution is just a piece of paper with some good ideas in it.. Other things are not so good..
Anyway, a libertarian society is one that doesn't have a proactive state, but rather a night watchman state seaprated 100% from the economy that deals only with protecting the individual. Basically a society based on volyntarism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels The Constitution is just a piece of paper--that's a retarded sophomoric statement. When you get pulled up before the dictator in chains, tell him the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Some not so good--yeah, that's why there's another piece of paper called the Bill of Rights and things called Amendments. Night watchman state--can't figure that one out. Separated 100% from the economy--a ridiculous statement. You simplify to absurdity as do many naive fundamentalist libertarians.
tryptala 1 year ago
@tryptala Why? Because you say so?
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels Is this an argument? Is there substance to the question at all?
tryptala 1 year ago
You get people to revolt with some impassioned speeches and letting them know they're being screwed in some way, and then after the revolution you start to bandy about with ideas as you reconstruct a society. The ideas are an afterthought to emotional action and are usually only argued and expanded upon amongst a small group of the power brokers who emerge post-revolution.
tryptala 1 year ago
You suffer from Sophistry. Vote for Ron Paul. End the FED, end Fractional Reserve Lending, Abolish the personal income tax, end the empire. It takes a character to move a revolution forward. We'd all still be part of Greater Britain if it weren't for the small group of revolutionaries rousing the populace and the reason they each wanted to raise a revolt may have nothing to do with ideas. As usual, a lot of it was just about money.
tryptala 1 year ago
BS. That's not how politics works. Politics is character based. Characters move people to act, not ideas. Gandhi, MLK, "the Founding Fathers," Reagan, Roosevelt, Caesar, Jesus, etc., etc., etc. This is an old argument in historiography and the notion that the spread of ideas effect change is weak. Christianity was spread during the Middle Ages, yet it was feudal. It requires the action of characters to make people act on ideas, and often the ideas are simply a tool to make people act.
tryptala 1 year ago
Drink soda.
NerdFangs 2 years ago
Really well stated.
Rose0883 2 years ago
Brilliant video. The reverence for the Constitution among some Ron Paul supporters is a rediculous appeal to authority. The Constitution is not a principle. Freedom is. Because freedom is more of a fact than an opinion, and we can extrapolate a just government from a principle of freedom. Unfortunately that government has never existed, surprisingly, because the anarchist idea that no man has authority over another, and that we are free to defend that condition, is an easy idea to understand
dbmcmillan 2 years ago 3
Ron Paul is the man, nice vid :D
fps0chris 2 years ago
Sum: the ideas that would oppose current abuses are not in wide enough circulation for fundamental cultural change, which would precipitate a change of regime beyond what we currently have.
Thesis: the man ≠ the ideas which he is put a representative of. Without the ideas, Ron Paul wouldn't be. But he is, and thus the ideas as well. The objective is cultural-political regime change, not Ron Paul. Thus: spread the ideas, not proselytizing mere 'support' for one man.
xomni, great job
barrywinehousexp 2 years ago
How can you discern that Ron Paul (or anyone) is the result of a cause and not part of the cause? Surely you can see how 'cause and effect' are not mutually exclusive concepts.
fungku777 3 years ago 2
Id say if we compare the relative freedom of the USA and the conservative forces that were forced on people who lived under the soviet regime there was much more individualism in Soviet Russia than in the US.
Even the US's political structure is very rigid with only 2 parties which are obviously not accurately representing many of the citizens the US.
If you think on the edges of the political and social spectrum you are bound to feel us is very diverse in thought,but is it?
dzhibrish 3 years ago
How is individuality a cultural trait of the US if all it advocates all the time are icons to bow to?
dzhibrish 3 years ago
I don't think that the only idea in American culture is "bowing to icons." There's still a strong sense that people should live life their own way instead of following a preset path.
That being said, its a cultural trait in dire need of a renaissance.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
i agree with him here, America is generally thinks of itself as the country where anyone willing to work hard can make it. So in that sence it is a trait
fps0chris 2 years ago
You support a man who is AGAINST financial aid for college students and wants to outlaw abortion? You need to look at MORE than just immigration when you choose a candidate to support. I understand his immigration issues but in case you haven't noticed he is really religious. I can't believe you're an Atheist. You've got to be kidding me!
Workaholic313 3 years ago
I don't support him or agree with him on abortion. Watch my "Ron Paul is not Jesus" video.
As far as financial aid, yes, I am against systemized stealing from people to pay for someone's college education.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
I think your trying to hard... libertarianism has been around for a while... but most people where drawn to Ron Paul not for his libertarian views but for his brutal honesty and vast knowledge, and how that completely contrasts from the rest of the candidates.
Most people are pretty damn simple minded when it comes to elections... your suggesting moving the focus away from simply supporting a candidate to supporting a philosophy... that's too much for most people to get enthusiastic about.
1ncorporated 3 years ago
"The fact that it's easier to draw attention with something else does nothing to help that goal."
That makes absolutely no sense
Thats like saying "Just because advertising effectively draws in attention, It does not help achieve the goal of selling the product."
To back that up... Ron Paul is the familiar advertisement and the ideas of liberty are the product that advertisement is selling.
1ncorporated 3 years ago
You're missing something.
Effect contributes to our causes as causes are to effects. Supporting liberty in the mist of a presidential campaign will not draw as much attention as the support of the effect or representation of a particular cause.
universalwhat 3 years ago
But if your goal is to establish liberty, then you should draw attention to liberty. The fact that it's easier to draw attention with something else does nothing to help that goal.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Totally agree with you here, and I'm so glad. Ron Paul said this himself even and I think it's very important that people understand that. That's why folks should join the Campaign for Liberty and/or other groups, or even just do stuff with friends and such, to spread the message of freedom and carry the torch for the cause of liberty.
=)
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
One thing you don't take into account is that an effect such as the Ron Paul revolution can also be a cause at the same time. A lot of this has to do with the much greater exposure libertarian ideas are getting with him as a presidential candidate, but also people are seeing that libertarianism is popular.
The idea of the constitution as a political ideal is much easier to sell to people who are not hardcore libertarians, and can be a stepping stone to greater understanding.
jackson32 3 years ago
the dumbest guy ive met on youtube yet.
and ive seen thousands of americans with 10 dollar webcams and a fuckin mouth.
no matter how fat faced i am.
i dont vote but ron paul is our last hope, its 2 sides fighting for the middle and no american has yet to win. dont vote.
seph0000 3 years ago
the deification of ron paul is absolutely ridiculous. ron paul does not have ANY original ideas at all people. he is just a reflection of previously developed ideas.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Holy shit.
And the other candidates do have new ideas?
gnawph 3 years ago
I never suggested that either.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Anyone who "deifies" Dr Paul is not paying attention. Paul will be the first to tell you he is merely a student of liberty. But he is one of the bravest, most tireless & in terms of ears reached, he is hands down the greatest disseminator of the philosophy of liberty ever. So much of the carping & back-biting from anarchists & libertarians seems to me to be jealousy. When one of you guys is on national TV telling the world about Lysander Spooner (for the first time EVER! think about that!)...
mpolzkill 3 years ago
...or destroying Rudy 9iu11iani, you'll get lots of accolades too. Think of the tens of millions of foreigners who saw proof that we who live in America are not all psychotic scum like the degenerates he was standing next to on the stage. Anarchists may still have leaders; moral leaders. Dr. Paul IS THE moral leader of the mental construct known as the United States. Don't think that this is a bunch of sap either. Morals are the key, not systems. Solid morals are the basis of a free society.
mpolzkill 3 years ago
"Solid morals are the basis of a free society." Ron Paul's morals are logically inconsistent. He claims to be a proponent of nonaggression, but his stance on taxation and government itself contradict this idea.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Great comment (sorry I know this is old).
lukeev 3 years ago
The reason why consistent proponents of liberty, morality, and free market economics have never had the opportunity to deliver their message directly to the public is because media outlets are not going to put an anarchist on the air. It is as simple as that. Although Ron Paul is correct on many issues, with the exception of his very authoritarian views on "illegal immigration" and the very existence of government of course, the personality cult which has arisen around him is ridiculous.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Damned Youtube, I posted a response days ago, & it didn't take.
What stance on taxation?
He's not an anarchist, for many he's kind of like marijuana, a "gateway", ha ha.
That's right you won't be aired, that's why Dr Paul is so extremely valuable.
His stance on immigration is totally understandable. There IS a concept called the United States believed in by nearly everyone, even if you & I know it is a lamentable abstraction. Until the welfare state is demolished there will be an "immi..
mpolzkill 3 years ago
...gration problem". A move towards a free society will have to be slow one. One thing at a time. Dr Paul knows that eliminating the welfare state would cure the "immigration problem". You believe in borders for your property right? Hypothetically, if we built a free society, wouldn't you believe in borders regarding criminals? Any people from outside who came uninvited would be forcibly thrown out.
Personality cult? That is a gross overstatement. There are heroes in the world. He is one.
mpolzkill 3 years ago
The only significant borders that are both moral and necessary for civilization to exist are property borders. You have the right to free association.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
No. His stance on immigration is utterly incomprehensible and completely inconsistent with any philosophy relating to liberty. If the issue is how "illegal immigrants" benefit from the welfare state , then Ron Paul should be discussing why the welfare state is also immoral and should be abolished.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
He does discuss that. I've got to go, I'll talk to you later.
mpolzkill 3 years ago
Paul's stance on immigration is not inconsistent. His point is that you can't have a welfare state and immigration at the same time because you won't be able to afford to support the new immigrants. Getting rid of welfare measures would alleviate this and mean you could allow much more immigration.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
"Allowing" immigration is also inconsistent with liberty: if I'm a free american, I should be allowed to house, employ, or even just invite over to my house, anybody- and unless they are a physical threat, Ron Paul has no right to stop them at the border.
If he wants to, he can campaing on denying non citizens free healthcare and welfare, just not preventing them from visiting me at my house (100 million of them, if I feel like it).
deinse81 3 years ago
I think you mean NOT allowing immigration is inconsistent with liberty.
Anyways, the point from a practical standpoint is that you simply can't afford to have lots of immigration when you have lots of welfare measures. Getting rid of those welfare measures would mean you wouldn't have to keep people out.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
The use of the word "allow" implies that it is a decision to be made, by government, based on practical considerations such as the one you mentioned. It is not.
If you wanted to be finacially conservative, you could simply deny immigrants both welfare and citizenship.That's fine. You don't need to stop them at the border or prevent them from working once they're here.
My main point is: Getting rid of welfare shouldn't precede immigration reform.We can start an "open border" policy right now.
deinse81 3 years ago
Given your first paragraph, then yes getting rid of welfare SHOULD precede immigration reform, otherwise you won't be able to afford having that many immigrants. If you deny them citizenship and welfare I agree you should be able to let them in but that isn't what's happening politically. People keep voting for them to get services and to be subsidized. It would be more practical to get rid of welfare and the effects would probably be better as well, and you wouldn't need to keep anyone out.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
I don't really know Ron Paul's stance on immigration, because after I found out he's religious and anti abortion-rights, I knew it didn't matter for me: I couldn't sanction that.
However, it seems to me that opposing immigration based on some wrong that we will do later (give them welfare), is dishonest: if he gets elected, and allows immigrants to come here and work legally, couldn't he then prevent them from being given welfare?
deinse81 3 years ago
P.S.
I think you're misunderstanding my first paragraph: I mean house them myself, in exchange for rent, not the gov.
I'm certainly not in favor of any welfare, or even any form of taxation.
I just don't think linking welfare to immigration is moral: I see no difference between preventing immigration and deporting welfare recipient americans based on that argument. If you are practical, why not replace bad americans with better mexicans?(or indians, they're techy) That should work, right?
deinse81 3 years ago
oh ok I see.
And I didn't "link" welfare to immigration. The fact is that they are receiving benefits like "free" public education, medical care without having to pay back, etc.
Those are things that shouldn't be allowed even to our own citizens. It's against freedom and therefore shouldn't be allowed except under the MOST dire circumstances.
I'm saying I'm against welfare measures and they're one thing that prevent us from being able to afford more immigration.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
Well "abortion rights" is controversial because not everyone is sure when a human becomes a person. Some folks believe a human is a person after they're born, some believe after 6 months, folks like me believe all humans are people and therefore you can only kill in self-defense (like in rape or when it's a health issues and such).
His thing with that was that despite him being against it, it should be dealt with at the state level, never the federal level. So each state will have differences
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
I like that you are voicing these concerns and insight.
I'm not sure why you are spending as much time as you are back-biting toward a LOT- if not ALL the same type of ideas you want to be seen manifested in the 'real life.'
It seems like there is an element of 'ego' here... like you are just arguing to be 'right,' for the sake of proving yourself 'right.' While I understand the basis for your argument- wouldn't your time be better spent not trying to attack support Ron Paul- Ego in the way?
javanfirkins 3 years ago
Ron Paul has some good ideas but some bad ones as well, such as his support for the constitution as a document, his immigration policy, etc.
The main reason I do videos like this is because many of his fans are downright psychotic and I get annoyed to a point where I feel the need to vent.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
downright psychotic? lol..
you should see the people who are strictly against him(not you, but), now they are psychotic. people that say they want the federal income tax so that they can get a big check every year?? haha.. that is about a third or less of what they took out to begin with.
crazyperson10101 3 years ago
Yeah but those people aren't claiming to share my goals.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Well done.
serpentwisdom3 3 years ago
Freedom is popular.
7r4 3 years ago
I disagree the man Ron Paul has nothing to do with his appeal and that it is all about the ideals of Libertarianism. His integrity, intelligence and manner are all intangibles that add to his appeal. Bricks don't make the wall people do.
bottleslingguy 3 years ago 2
If that didn't make sense: think of the bricks in the wall as Libertarian ideals. Bricks just sitting there being idolized are fine if you idolize bricks, but when someone mixes the mortar, sets the markers and lines, builds a foundation, and then adds their own personal touches here and there; the bricks come alive to serve people, not the other way around.
RP is a mason who has the mind to get our wall (country) back on its original foundation. Good, real change not placebo change.
bottleslingguy 3 years ago
I agree. It's not just what he says, because I don't trust politicians. Ron Paul is obviously honest, due to what he says being attacked repeatedly. If he was lying, he would be the "most" popular. If you get what I mean.
crazyperson10101 3 years ago
Philosophy of non-aggression doesn't ring nearly as well with voters as 'Restore the Republic' 'Legalize the Constitution.'
Take the stick out of your ass already.
DeAnte85 4 years ago
it reminds me of what ayn rand said. you cant educate poeple through a political campaign. it has to start in universities. liberty has power enimies unfortunatly. and i think the most important aspect of Ron Paul's campaign is bringing like minded freemdom loving libertarians together. it has helped me solidify my values so it cant be a complete waste. lol
tiko2114 4 years ago 2
Ok Dude, I am coming at this from a hard core libertarian/anarcho-capitalist POV. I respect Rand, her aristotelian roots and John Locke but it seems to me that you're missing two things.
1. Ron Paul is a more effective vector for spreading libertarian ideas than anything yet tried. Yes his popularity is an effect, but it is also a cause.
2. The NAP John Locke, Rand and her arguments and finer points of economics are not effective hooks for getting people to accept libertarianism.
What's better?
GBanville 4 years ago
you know what Socrates said right? people who think they know something means they actually really know nothing. you are not open to new ideas and you simply write them off as irrelevant, that good sir will lead to the death of mankind. anyone who would be persuaded by this circle talking deserves the hell you envision.
TheHanzoMK1 4 years ago
i can see ur point... but right now, the most effective way to spread the message is to help get Ron Paul elected President. Theirfor, become incredibly influencial, and do all that, change society....
if he looses,, then there should be a movement to change the culture....
have ppl more active in local congressional elections, have true constitutionalists be Reps and Senators, after all, the Legislative is "sopposed to be" the strongest branch...
Thunderstruck680 4 years ago
Supporting Ron Paul is spreading the discussion of Liberty. His supporters are communication & researching, educating themselves & others, and in the end, helping liberty.
Ron Paul is significant because he lives by his principles, and he is a common connection for a great many people to communicate and work towards change(s).
robrrash 4 years ago 4
great vid. made me think
CelticRobot 4 years ago
A critical thinking person can conclude without variation that Ron Paul is the only candidate worthy of the presidency. I challenge you to present a valid argument against Ron Paul and to produce a better alternative from the current pool of candidates.
PGAJAMIE411 4 years ago
Check your premises. You've assumed that the electoral process is the best means to change things. Can you demonstrate this logically for me?
XOmniverse 4 years ago
What is your alternative? Positive affirmations that one is liberated by virtue of his declaration? You're are born free1 Freedom is not a choice. The question is, are there political forces that prevent you from exercising your inalienable right to live freely? If so, what do you do? Our founding fathers said to stand up against tyranny!
PGAJAMIE411 4 years ago
Did they vote?
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Yes.
PGAJAMIE411 4 years ago
You're being facetious. Of course they didn't vote King George out of office :P
XOmniverse 4 years ago
They voted for the U.S. Constitution.
Why don't you just say what you want to say. What is the alternative to the political process? Are you suggesting that we forcefully overthrow the federal government?
PGAJAMIE411 4 years ago
Preferably not. Do a Google search for Agorism. That's my alternative.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
I googled agorism, but I don't see how you can have a free market society when the government punishes you for it. In order for it to work you would have to have many others involved doing it together perhaps even their own communities but eventually you would have a violent standoff when the government tried to raid and imprison your community. It will take a bloody violent revolution to have a state free society, and anyone who is not willing to fight is not a true anarchist in my opinion.
buddyfreakinholly 3 years ago
Ron Paul's message is not limited to the libertarian ideology. It is also the defense against tyranny from the new world order scum. The crackdown on our rights with the "Patriot" Act, the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Act, and PD 51. The end of Posse Comitatus and Habeas Corpus are the intetions of these horrific actions. Have you heard of HR 1955? This is the mother of all attacks on the U.S. Constitution.
PGAJAMIE411 4 years ago
Your premise is baseless. You assert that Ron Paul supporters are illegitimate, because they are not supporting libertarianism. Sir, they are supporting the most visible articulate libertarian, while he is running for president. They use him to spread the ideas of liberty. He is our megaphone to the world. You already know this and that is why you invalidated your argument at the end of your very futile attempt.
PGAJAMIE411 4 years ago
Support Ron Paul. Go, do all this shit that you just said that wouldn't work and you just explained why, but I - DO HAVE AN "ARGUMENT."
This is an election. We are supporting a candidate that represents the ideas of not only "freedom," but peace, fiscal conservatism, civil rights, national sovereignty, and foreign relations. It is not a single, "Libertarian" goal.
PGAJAMIE411 4 years ago
oh man... THANK YOU. I have been telling people that Ron Paul is a RESULT not a CAUSE for a long time now.
MARKET DEMAND FOR LESS GOVERNMENT => RON PAUL
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
I agree RP is an effect. However he is also a vehicle for getting ideas of freedom in to the population and drawing people toward freedom. Long after the presidential election the value of the RP campaign could be measured by how many people are drawn to a non agression principle through exposure to RP and thereby Libertarianism.
stratvic 4 years ago
XO: So what should a Ron Paul supporter do, then, explicitly?
JessmanChicken86 4 years ago
Talk to people about LIBERTY, not Ron Paul.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Why are all of you complimenting him on this video? XOmniverse isn't responsible for it's content; he is but a mere carrier of an idea eminating from the great intellect of the great beyond.
grantsinmypants 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Latest YouTube Drama
1. Did fallofautumndistro use a TOP SECRET FORM to become a YT Partner?
2. CharlesTrippy WHORES himself by proposing to his girlfriend on the show.
3. JamesNintendoNerd WHORES himself because his $20 AVGN DVDs SOLD OUT.
4. WhatTheBuckShow WHORES himself by giving away a T-Shirt and theme song.
5. E-Beggar Saturninefilms looks like Chris Crocker on CRACK.
ɯoɔ˙loɐ@ɐɯɐɹpǝqnʇn
ɹoʌǝɹʇ ǝǝɹɟ
hundinsekh 4 years ago
I agree with you. Ron Paul is popular not because of himself (actually he's quite unexciting) but his ideas are what are amazing and exciting. He just came out at the right time. And Ron Paul supporters (the ones I talk to, at least) all see this as a MOVEMENT and not just a political campaign. We're out there to get Ron Paul elected, of course, but were also there to spread the message of liberty!
shagywashere 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Latest YouTube Drama
1. JipsiK Producing101 says YT FLAGGED HIS VIDEO and he was CENSORED.
2. Did FallOfAutumnDistro ABUSE YourTubeAdvocate to become a YT Partner?
3. FakeSagan says he doesn't have to E-Beg because he WORKS FOR A LIVING.
4. BigAl2k6 EXPOSES Irate Gamer on 5 very detailed EXPOSE videos.
5. Nalts advertises Best Buy electronic / computer store.
ɯoɔ˙loɐ@ɐɯɐɹpǝqnʇn
ɹoʌǝɹʇ ǝǝɹɟ
chorilalos 4 years ago
Funamentally agree. However... the bulk of citizens rationally do not invest the time you have to understand these matters based on the wieght of one vote. What they are looking for is not to understand the workings but to be able to choose a finished product. Like when you buy a car you want it for what it will do and you don't invest the time to find how or why it does it. RP is a vehicle for ideas of freedom.
stratvic 4 years ago
I believe the Constitution is the closest thing to libertarianism in terms of a pragmatic approach. It seems more likely than a vast tract of land with no government whatsoever.
riaamaan 4 years ago
16th ammendment? The constitution is a reasonably libertarian set of ideas but they are just a set of ideas and are not necessarily the one right constitution ... it just happens to be the one that exists and was once accepted. It would be a step forward (or back) for liberty. But that does not make it ideal.
stratvic 4 years ago
Supreme court has ruled more than once that 16th gave no new powers of taxation. The term "income" is not the same as wages in exchange for labor. It pertains to profits from business ventures.
riaamaan 4 years ago
The Bill of Rights is closest to Libertarian ideas. That better? :D
shagywashere 4 years ago
What I think you're overlooking is that Ron Paul is powerful and convincing voice for liberty. Our constitution is one of the most influential documents in all of history for spreading the ideas of liberty. It's whole purpose was to *limit* the power and scope of government, a concept entirely alien to the world at the time. Ron Paul himself has done more in the last year to spread the ideas of liberty than the rest of libertarians put together in the last 10.
voisine 4 years ago
I would say the cause is Liberty and that the effect hasn't happened yet...
tedacine 4 years ago
Good Video Thankyou
scrimon 4 years ago
Have you ever heard of a positive feedback effect? Libertarianism used to be a significant part of the conservative movement, but no longer. Neoconservatives have stamped out all traces of libertarianism within the party. In a 2 party system, one must "convert" one of the major parties to a particular philosophy to win.
curtisag 4 years ago
Great video! I'm currently working for the Ron Paul campaign and completely agree. The ideas are what is important. Ron Paul says this himself all the time. I think the whole fanboy syndrome amongst many supporters is counterproductive and stupid. Maybe it is the leftover effects of people in this country being programed for years to worship their political leaders. I use Paul to introduce the ideas of liberty not to say how this one man is the answer to all of our problems.
n8kas2 4 years ago
That's an interesting interpretation of what's going on, but I think the ideas of liberty can only come from one mindset, (like your example, "x"), and to our mindsets we are bound for life, usually. Young people of our day, with modern education, are taught in such a way that liberty is understood, and is a part of the mindset of the average young person. So, as the older generations die out and the young'uns grow up, liberty comes.
But it won't come from being "spread".
alliedtoasters 4 years ago
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays... Might be good reading for you. I think you are missing the point due to your classifying in general, instead of on issues. Ron Paul is very much an Austrian economics driven candidate. His son's name is Rand....
highwaytoSerfdom 4 years ago
People were made to be free. Freedom will not create a perfect world. Just the best possible world. Freedom is the solution to the human condition. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who understands this. ALL the others tell you that if you give them power(that is, give up your power/freedom) they will fix all life's problems for you. Which makes them either fools or power hungry liars.
carcabe 4 years ago
Do you think Ron Paul is getting the support he's getting because of, say, his Austrian economic outlook, or his anti-war views? Many of the online supporters I see backing this guy seem totally clueless about his domestic economic views.
qtronman 4 years ago
You're right about this, and Paul is certainly exploiting their ignorance. But I wonder if there is anything necessarily wrong with this tactic. Its not like these liberals have a right to institute their domestic agenda; so whats the problem with tricking them into putting an Austrian Econ-sympathizer into power?
Morally, I dont see anything wrong with using ideological fraud to defend against ideologically-motivated state violence, but tactically (read: philosophically), I have my doubts.
grantsinmypants 4 years ago
The one practical thing I see wrong with this (apart from the moral problem in exploiting other peoples' ignorance--but, hey, he's a politician, isn't that what they do professionally?) is that if in the 1-in-10 million-light-year chance that he gets in office, and then begins to cut the welfare state, most of the anti-war dependent fools who put him in office will rebel. In the final analysis, you can't _really_ put one over on people, especially when you actually try to implement you program.
qtronman 4 years ago
He wouldn't be exploiting their ignorance in order to, say, sell them products they don't need or to feed a superiority-complex; he'd simply be doing it to protect his (and your) rights. It's analogous to gaining the confidence of your kidnapper so that you can grab the gun from him when his guard is down.
Also, you're right, the (small, dedicated minority of liberal) people would rebel; but isn't that what the police and Nat'l Guard is for?
grantsinmypants 4 years ago
A lot of people know of his Austrian economic views. He's talked about his economic views in debates, on Leno and on the countless YouTube videos. If you support Ron Paul you know what his ideas are.
shagywashere 4 years ago
Frankly, I don't even think Ron Paul (or any libertarian for that matter) knows what his ideas are. I think he knows what the Founding Father's ideas were, but I doubt he could provide a compelling, sophisticated defense of them.
grantsinmypants 4 years ago
...Sure, people know he's for the gold standard, but alot of people like him just b/c he's against Iraq or for drug legalization. That's b/c these people are superficial. Once President Paul started actually dismantling the welfare state, they'd cry betrayal and say that that wasn't what they meant when they voted for him.
grantsinmypants 4 years ago
freedom isnt given to us by politician, it is ours to take.
893Productions 4 years ago
no...
how come i have to smoke weed in secrecy?
alliedtoasters 4 years ago
Because like with every gang you don't want to give them anything to be upset about. Just like you would try your hardest to not upset the Mafia you don't want the State to be upset.
Even the Mafia don't want to upset the State, that is how big powers that gang has.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
I think that Ron Paul has been the vehicle for many libertarian converts. Though he does still support a state system, he is a bit more palatable to the average American than, say, an anarchist. Once we get the cultural to change back to the constitution, anarchy might seem a bit more palatable. In this way, he could be looked at as a means to an end, even though it might be contradictory. Middle America walks in baby steps.
robshred66 4 years ago
Tell me something, XOmnivers--were you not a minarchist before an anarchist?
robshred66 4 years ago
I was, but it took a very short amount of time for me to deconvert once the ideas of market anarchism had been presented to me.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Just about perfect. I'm still supporting Ron Paul & doing everything I CAN on a local level to spread the message of freedom & liberty & the dangers of our Two Party System. If everyone who is supporting Ron Paul had an equal drive to simply write letters to the local paper & talk to the people around them, I really think that the sleeping giant that is Libertarian America would awaken.
Ghostrider616 4 years ago
Support liberty for the entire future.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Ron Paul's unusual popularity is the result of two things. First, average people in this country are starting to sense just how radical and just how deadly the socialist Left and ascist Right really are. Fewer thinking people are willing to continue to dismiss them as "pinkos" or "practical."
The second reason is that Ron Paul is a much more admirable invididual than any of the flakes that the Libertarians have coughed up in the past. There's a reason why he's running as a Republican.
grantsinmypants 4 years ago 3
EXACTLY! The popularity of Paul IS based on the spread of the ideology of Libertarianism and popularity of the message.
Throw in that he is INFINITELY more likable than ANY of the Republican or Democratic party candidates and it's a win/win situation.
Ghostrider616 4 years ago 2
Well said.
And in my opinion voting for something witin a gun toting system isn't going to help get rid of the gun toting system itself.
eviloatmeal 4 years ago
You vote in self defence so that your message can get out and "contaminate" enough of the capita before government starts becoming violent.
If violence breaks out, I doubt much good will yield as a result. Doing everything to eliminate a violent revolution in order for the evolution to be permitted to take place is worth a vote in my opinion.
lordmetroid 4 years ago 2
What I'm trying to say is that by voting you're supporting that system. If nobody voted, then the system would fail. Now of course in our fun little f-ed up world the people on the top would simply start shooting us, so it wouldn't work very well in practice, but I still don't want to contribute to the violence by voting for someone, however indirect that contribution is. I contribute enough to it just going about my daily business.
eviloatmeal 4 years ago
There have been elections in USA where no one showed up to vote. Result, the politicians which occupied office continued on.
Voting or not is not what will destroy the system. Ideas are the vital part. And it is of highest essense that you can spread the ideas.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
Also, I agree that "restoring the constitution" has nothing to do, directly, with libertarian thought, and many people support it because it sounds good, not realizing how limited the scope of the national government is, in a strict interpretation. But there *is* a reason Ron Paul calls himself "the champion of the constitution" and also identifies as a libertarian.
momerath42 4 years ago
I think you're missing the power of the feedback loop that is pop culture because of its apparent shallowness. This is understandable, but I'm quite sure more people have become familiar with the non-aggression principle through Dr. Paul's efforts than yours. On the other hand, I do hope a lot of "paulites" see your videos and perhaps start using slogans about the non-aggression principle ;)
momerath42 4 years ago
Of course he's an effect. He says it himself all the time in response to questions like "why do you think you're so popular?". He's also a useful tool in introducing libertarian ideals to people who think they already know what the word means, or who disregard third parties outright.
momerath42 4 years ago
"libertarian contamination", best combination of words ever.
...forget "cellar door", libertarian contamination is the future!!!
Luke12000 4 years ago
5 stars again...double ratings
GabeTheArchAngel 4 years ago
Very nicely presented.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Well put
TheGreatestGreatApe 4 years ago
How very insightful of you XO!
I'm still going to vote for Ron Paul though. He has a secret plan to colonize Mars. Earth is boring. It's time we got off this rock. Ron Paul 2008! Go Mars!
D4Shawn 4 years ago 3
lmao
TheGreatestGreatApe 4 years ago
XO - what do you do for a living? You should make a career teaching and writing about this stuff. It's clear that you're an active reader and you're an excellent speaker as well.
chapaev36 4 years ago 5
Interesting.
Chuloloc 4 years ago 2
Niiiice!
neutrinoide 4 years ago 2
5 stars
PatBuchanan2008 4 years ago
Agreed.
Poorkenny1 4 years ago