PLEASE JOIN THE WORLD REVOLUTION ON OCTOBER 15TH IN EVERY CITY AND VILLAGE ON EARTH. YOU CAN FIND THE EVENT ON FACEBOOK 'United for Global Change #15oct' PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD!
i suggest you read more about the many schools of thought regarding anarchism. libertarianism is indeed much like some forms of anarchy, such as anarcho-syndicalism.
Dude ron paul would be a bad leader. You see that's the purpose of being a President is to be the leader of Millions of People and that President has to make decisions that some of the people do not like sometimes but that is what voting is for, if that President is voted in then the majority of people must like Him or Her. Here's the thing ron paul says he's against imposing authority on people, but that is what a President must do to be a strong and effective leader.
NO of course not, but like I said I'm a Conservative and We Conservatives want America to stay Sovereign and Canada to stay Sovereign seperately but I also want America To Stay America and not be broken into a confederal group of none allined states, that's the last thing I want and ron pual wants to do this to us, he also wants to break up the Government and which I don't like the Idea of big government I want Our Government to remain Strong and Stronger than all the others.
I honestly believe in finding the middle group between it all. Finding the Balance between Corperation and Government Is what I believe in not getting completely rid of one or the other or both.
Strong and effective? Sounds Authoritarian.. I prefer Fair and Balanced.. You sound like you want a Dictator.. Someone strong willed a tough guy.. The president should be for the people by the people. Someone who inspires his/her citizens to be a productive member of the society they guide. Yes the president has to make tough choices but the people should be at the forefront of his mind when making those decisions.
What sounded authoritarian about My statement. I just want a strong, resolute President that makes good decisions. I want America to remain strong and resolute as well. You sound like you want anarchy and listlessness. The People are the forefront of the decisions because THAT'S WHAT VOTING IS FOR YOU FREAKING MORON. God I am so freaking tired of explaining this. That's what voting is FOR! How many ways do I have to say it, and the Man Or Women that gets into the presidency I want to be strong.
Why are you slandering me? If someone goes against your opinion you feel the need to put them down? You know what buddy if you think the election system works so well why don't you explain how in the last two major elections there were discrepancies with the vote counts and how in this primary we see patterns of the same thing. The president is not picked by a majority popular vote. Delegates get two votes pledge one to their respective state majority and with the other vote as they please.
That means if you want a fair and balanced vote You need everyone in the electoral college to vote as they pledge(the constitution does not require the delegates to vote as pledged) they will and that'll only get you halfway their... Then you need the the absolute majority 270 electoral votes otherwise the twelfth amendment is put into play. That's a rarity.. But you see you're not voting for Prez your voting for someone else to vote for your candidate someone who is not required to vote fair.
Oh and if someone attacks Me I defend Myself (viciously If need be). You are showing how much like ron paul you truely with you crybaby mentality when ever someone comes back at an attack like that and how listless you are in you desires.
MY GOD you sound like a total idiot. I know your probably some "LIE"beral idiot that wants to weaken this Country even more than it is now so screw you you "LIE"beral douchebag. Get informed on the systems that work and the ones that don't, Strong, WISE Leadership pays off in the end. Weak, listless leadership always fails.
I'd prefer someone with a strong intellect over a moron who doesn't even recognize who our true enemy is, or some puppet who staffs his whitehouse with all CFR members and does whatever Bilderbergers tell him to do.
If you don't understand the reality that these corporo-fascists are a million times more of a threat to our freedom and survival than a CIA created group of suicide bombers...if you think those who know the facts are "theorists" then your intellect is too weak to run this nation.
Well I guess that's just cause you can't find any intellect yourself. You know you sound more like a "LIE"beral saying that the CIA created terrorism and that corporo-fascism. You talk about intellectuality, your just a left-wing conspiracy buff with no evidence to back up your statements and nothing but accusations and rhetoric. Promise Me something mister tinfoil idiot, promise Me you'll get a life or failing that do every one a favor and commit Japanese Sabaku so that no one else can suffer.
Liberty is fine and good, but it's a GOOD thing to have social programs. I don't believe in letting corporation rule everything.
I'm all for government programs, and against the NUA, too bad the left and right are so polarized, we wont win with this kinda shit all over youtube, etc.....
Maybe you should have added the point that osama bin laden was out to take these liberties from america (according to bush, that is why he attacked, he hated the american freedoms). But now you guys have the patriot act 1+2 and all kinds of shit which makes me think that binladen is 2-0 ahead right now.
You had me... Right up until you used the term "Freedom haters." How ignorant. So anyone that disagrees with your philosophy hates freedom? Bullshit. It's that kind of rhetoric that causes many people, including myself, to come to the conclusion that Libertarians aren't the solution to our country's problems.
Haha if im so crazy explain this and ill give you $1000 has to be logical, message me for details wa tch?v=tIx2CVRxRXg&feature=related wat ch?v=2fczExzh7gQ wat ch?v=MSOOK3tocTk&feature=related wat ch?v=cTiONdJJRcw&feature=related wa tch?v=8uNbKJofv3c&feature=related w atch?v=VMUfrotJv14 wa tch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE wa tch?v=BPU8w7Bxc0A w atch?v=Ey8LRoFPrOo Remove spaces in links to make work
You're implying that legalizing drug usage would be a bad thing. This is a fallacious statement. Legalizing the production, sale, and usage of drugs would completely undermine the dangerous black market that currently exists for these products. It would also give drug addicts a chance at rehabilitation, which is what they really need, instead of prison time.
the war on drugs is just a way for the government to control us. piss tests at work. piss testing people on parole. arresting people solely because they have a PLANT in their pocket. then sticking them in a building where they either get violent and tough or they get raped and humiliated. Great system of Justice in this country. and its getting worse
That "plant" you talk about, is harmful to their body, it affects their work, and corporations should have a right to do a drug test on their employees.
No, it would give drug addicts an easier way to obtain the drugs that they are so addicted to. It would spread the poison of drug use even further through our society.
So you think that we should make alcohol illegal again? cuz thats the exact same thing they said about booze. And you can see what a great success prohibition was. I guess you're right. Drugs are best kept in the black market so only the Mafia can make any money off of it. screw society making money off of the drugs in our society. Give it all to the mafia you're right! what a brave soul you are for taking such a unique position.
Look up the difference between the addiction rates of methamphetamines and alcohol or ecstacy and alcohol. The difference between drugs and alcohol is you can get hooked on drugs on the first try, and then it will never let you go. I'm not denying that there is addiction to alcohol in this country, but the chances of getting addicted to drugs are much higher. Also, drugs can kill you the first time you take them, while you'd really have to drink a lot to kill yourself.
The problem is not legalization is responsibility, people accept that their decisions are superseded by someone who incompetent enough:). You see when someone knowingly drives without a seatbelt and gets killed you don't pay his insurance, because he got what he deserved. Real problem lies not within Libertarian domain, but within absent-minded or over-pampering parents domain. Jackasses from my high school are already DEAD , because of their stupidity,
not because of some government regulation. I'm not joking, but when I received a call from my parents and they dropped this stuff during the conversation, I just had to say - "They got what they deserved". If you are a jackass chances are that you won't survive for a long time, regardless of the regulations in place.
Ron Paul mixes Republican Conservatism with Paleolibertarianism which a school of thought founded by Lew Rockwell associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics & cultural conservatism in social thought.
Austrian economics, antifederalism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement's attitudes toward trade, commerce and statecraft.
"All forms of government intervention amount to an attack on prosperity." - Rockwell
Mike Gravel is more libertarian then Ron Paul. Ron Paul is an anti abortionist.that is NOT libertarian. Mike Gravel is working to give us the right to vote as citizens. What could be more libertarian then that?Giving us citizens the right to keep our government in check and keep it from getting any bigger. If you're truly a libertarian then you'll support the most libertarian candidate. If you're just a follower of a current trend that thinks ron paul is "cool" then youll ignore all i just said.
He wants America to have a direct democracy. That would mean that we would vote on every single bill created by the Legislature. I don't know about you, but as far as all the elections we have at the state, local, and federal level, I vote enough. Both Gravel and Ron Paul are radical extremists.
this is how the national initiative works. First someone writes the bill,they form a petition, once it has enough signatures, then it gets voted on by us. then we have to vote on it again after 6 month deliberation in congress and society so that all the pros and cons can be weighed in, then we have a confirmation vote. the ONLY issues that will become National initiatives will be issues that Americans are united on.
And we will only vote on 2 initiatives a year. Thats a very far cry from "vote on every single bill created by the Legislature". Its not radical, in fact it would have been in the constitution but Washington and Franklin left it out to protect corporations from citizens. In the constitution it would have been in the section "right to protest, right to petition, and then to vote to make laws" but they left it out to protect the slave merchants.
I'm just wondering if "Oldhacks" agrees with this video? Because if he does then he probably stop talking bad about Ron Paul because this is exactly what he stands for!! I like Mike Gravel and Kucinich but they dont quite understand that big government is not good and socialistic healthcare would be a disaster!!
Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian. He just uses them as he uses everybody to get more support to get more MONEY. its a total scam and I'm sick of people being too stupid to recognize it. He's been in Congress for 30 years yet his record is abysmal! nobody knows how to think critically anymore. they just follow the herd. even if that herd is going over a cliff.
its funny that you think that you're more informed then they guy that ended the draft, the guy that fought Nixon all the way to the supreme court, the guy that ended nuclear testing in the northern pacific, the guy that worked with congress to impeach Nixon, the guy that exposed the monstrous behavior that was going on behind the scenes during the vietnam war. Yea I'm sure you know more then the one man that achieved all of these things... an arrogant moronic majority is whats killing us.
and never once at any time has Mike ever said he wants UHC. He simply wants to make medicine more affordable by allowing ppl to get their meds from Canada where it's half the price.
Life isn't so simple. I don't think Libertarianist are Anarchists, but there is something to be said that a true Libertarian state in modern days would fall into Anarchy.
Besides life isn't so simple that it can be solved by simple adherence to a few individual rights. Morality isn't black and white, thats an old Christian sentiment. We need laws and a constitution that reflects the gray areas of life.
libertarians are people that believe in the right to self governance and individual freedom and a fair economy where everyone has a chance to get rich!. thats libertarianism in a nut shell.
It's amazing how people bitch about their taxes, bitch about the government, bitch about this or that, and then call anyone who opposes that an "Anarchist" or "Radical lefty". People seem to want an excuse for not supporting Ron Paul. Yet, they don't hesitate to support canidates who flip-flop on issues, lie, and have ties to Corporate and military interests. This country is going to hell, and it's all because of ignorance. People will fight liberty to the bitter end, but say they want it.
If you add up the name 'George Bush' in Hebrew letters it comes out: G = 3 (gimel) e = 5 (heh) o = 70 (ayin) r = 200 (resh) g = 3 (gimel) e = 5 (heh) B = 2 (beth) u = 70 (ayin) s = 300 (shin) h = 8 (cheth) total = 666 (Antichrist) I challenge anyone to find another powerful world leader, either now or in the past, whose name adds up to 666 in Hebrew.
There is a major problem, though. What is truly justly acquired property that you can fight for? Is the oil from Africa, sold to us by rapacious governments, without money given to peasants, our property? Are trees logged in a country that is decimating its forests and extinguishing its native species our justly acquired property? Are animals tortured (like veal calves) for our consumption justly our property? The truth is that we need some government intervention.
Just look a toddler. Thinking of others has to be taught and learned. I also agree with Ron Paul that using government beaurocrats to FORCE people into virtue is the wrong tool. That is the domain of charities, churches, families ane friends. Paying taxes so the gov't can force your neighbors to have the personality you approve of is just wasted money and if you keep trying it they won't be inspired to work at all and we'll be living in an exact replica of the former Soviet Union.
The founders outlawed unapportioned taxes IN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION. The 16th amendment in 1913 was never ratified by the states but was put in place by fraud. We take more than half our federal income through tarriffs and user fees like the gas tax. The income tax and the IRS and all the people they stress out and all the lives they destroy---absolutely pointless. The amount we take in through tariffs and user fees TODAY EXCEEDS the entire federal budget we had a decade ago.
Not only is the IRS freezing accounts and putting most small business owners out of business creating unemployment, putting otherwise law abiding citizens in jail, seizing their family's homes--the tax code is thousands of pages and impossible for trained accountants to know or understand let alone the average american. TAXING INCOME has a chilling effect on the economy in a great many ways. The IRS is idiocy and quite literally organized crime and slavery.
Ron Paul - thinks america should reflect CHRISTAIN "values". what about seperation of church and state?? Also is a pro lifer; great more unwanted population. Point 3 the governmentsould have the power of force to protect the rights of it citizens.BUT.. it seems you also want less govt and moreprivate control? How about letting Armalite run the Union?
Ron Paul is a pro-life christian who believes that the federal government is LIMITED by the constitution from determining what is murder and what the punishment for murder should be (see the 10th amendment). He also believes that the government may not ever force anyone to believe anything or adhere to any particular faith.
What we have now is corporatism. Corporations run our gov't lock stock and barrell. We now have 100% PRIVATE control over the federal gov't via the CFR, its defense and energy contractors and lobbyists like big pharm.
Ron Paul wants gov't contractors to be legally prohibited from lobbying.
It's OK that ppl have control over their OWN private property so long as they don't impinge on ANY other individual's rights or property...thus pollution would be regulated.
It is a radical idea that private individuals control what they own so long as nobody gets hurt, I know. Crazy talk in the land of the free. OWNING the gov't is what we have NOW and what libertarians want to OUTLAW. This isn't complicated. You can't have control over your own body and money if someone else has control over everone's gov't and can force you to buy their health insurance and stop using your herbal remedy.
I agree. Good hearted philosophy. Andrew Jackson style. But, Ron Paul is not the person to help lead your ideals (if he sincerly beleives the same). He is a sheep not a sheppard. I checked out the liberty vid: good recommendation.
Lookie lookie the "church" believes that it is murder after conceptopn- who cares?! All those bible votes(that's who) that ron paul Will support into public policies and standards. All i'm saying is it will not stop there with him' a supposed man of science.
Libertarians ignore the fact that most citizens have two options - work, or starve. Not much of a choice.
But Libertarians still want to repeal the minimum wage, collective bargaining, safety regulations, sexual harassment laws, and every other law that workers have fought for.
No wonder so many Libertarians are teenagers - they've never worked a day in their lives.
Loony relax, we'll still force everyone to pay for your food stamps. It's gonna be okay. You won't have to get a job and you can still chat on the internet all day.
TinfoilCRITIC relax, I work and pay my taxes - unlike Paultards.
I've noticed how you won't refute the Libertarian agenda.
I'll say it again so that everyone can understand what Libertarians stand for:
Libertarians want to repeal the minimum wage, union laws, health and safety regulations, sexual harassment laws, and every other law that workers have fought for.
No wonder Libertarians get less than 1% of the vote.
the unions have been bought out. they need to be abolished. its just as much a racket as the racket they were created to contest.
the minimum wage fiasco is legitimate because they use the minimum wage as means to toy with our individual liberty i.e. the price of living rises but they wait till the very last minute to raise the minimum wage. it's a scam. Of course we need a minimum wage requirement but the feds aren't using it for what its there for.
What you want is to sluff off the hard issues - call those "state issues" and say "are you saying states cant handle such issues". WHat the fuch is a state, you moron? The issue has to be dealt with by people. You just want to sluff off all real issues to someone else, while you can have this la la land of not dealing with the real conflicts that come from conflicting rights, and conflicting self interests.
And here is another clue you idiot. The states right appoach (a cop out, with a history of slavery, etc) wont work on pollution, you moron. A lot of things wont. But if you cant fuccing figure out why a state by state approach wont work, I cant help your idiot ass. Why not just say its a "county" issue. Or a "city" issue. Or a "block" issue. Its a crock.
Libertarian is such a vague piece of fluff that its really meaningless. Hey moron, the problem comes when a CONFLICT comes between two people. For example, on guy wants to burn the dirtiest coal on earth, in ways the pollute the hell out of his neighbors and harms their lungs. Ron Paul would not allow citizens to demand federal pollution laws. Why not -- its not in consitution. Insanity.
Mark, I'll say this slowly so you understand. HE -- LEAVES -- THE -- POLUTION -- LAWS -- TO -- THE -- STATES. Are you saying that state governments are incapable of handling what the federal government screws up anyhow? No wonder you consider libertarianism a vague piece of fluff, you don't understand its most basic fundamentals.
Say is slower moron. This "leave it to the states thing" is a crock, and always has been. States rights was the biggest excuse for keeping slavery. (Religion was the biggest excuse for starting).
The state thing is just a dodge you idiot. The state would have the same dilemma, jack off. HOw do you balance one guys right to create energy, with another guys right to breathe clean air? You just want this cop out crap. I understand the fundamentals a lot better than you. I know a lot more history, and what has been done with this cop out. Doesnt fool me, looks like it fooled you.
Ron Paul calls himself libertarian, but Hilter called himself a man of the people. So what. Ron Paul also believes(see below) that even if we citizens demand our congressmen pass labor laws, civil rights laws, safety laws, pollution laws, we cant have them. Why? Cause by some lunacy, Ron Paul thinks we have to put such things in the CONSTITUTION. As if that is magic. If it were magic, we wouldnt have had slavery.
Funny -- cause Ron Paul calls himself libertarian - but he considers slavery to be a state right. He is against slavery, of course. But he thinks if a state wants it, the fed government -- nor anyone else -- should stop it. Ask him. Go ahead.
I just looked at your channel and, as a name like "PrayingForWar" would have one expect, see that the government has been indoctrinating you sufficiently enough to make any answer to this a waste of time. If you are so hellbent on war, have you thought of going yourself or sending your kids? I wish you peace in your heart.
Your statements are not correct. Of course each individual has a right to healthcare and education. The question is if CITIZENS will be empowered take responsibility themselves to fund those things privately or if they expect a big central government to do everything for them. Our Consitution has very limited role for central government. If you did not have to pay income tax, for example and there is no LAW requiring it, you would have money to fund these necessary things.
well i think you could thank libertarians for protecting your property, but i doubt you will have any when the market creates such terrible wage slavery that you cant get any property to protect
Tyranny boils down to men with guns telling you what you can't do or what you must do while you pose no clear and present danger to others. Regardless of the legal context or the semantic dance, military superiority calls the shots, subject only to majority public opinion which has its effects not only on the families of soldiers but on the soldiers, cops & agents themselves.
If you try that in court the corporate sycophant judge will throw it out. Ultimately you are right. But we are an occupied nation enforced by controlled media. Most people aren't ready for what you are talking about yet, the REAL constitution, and the REAL state constitutions and technical definitions of jurisdictions and personhood. First we have to overthrow the CFR shadow gov't and clean house on their thugs in the intelligence community, state and defense depts and media.
hat I thought you were another one of them retards but then I seen the multiple stars and
I always know if it's anti Ron Paul because
they always have just one star.. But anyway I think you summed it up by stating that people that dont like Paul simply hate the constitution and would love the NAU. In other words TRADERS!!!!!
Not every crime commited by our government is Treason. The Constitution lays down a very narrow definition of treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
If you can prove that the government aided Al Quida or other factions that have shown themselves to be our enemies then you have proven treason, else you have only shown the presence of tyranny.
drop; see the article containing sibel edmonds in the london times.(f.b.i. overheard al-queda and u.s. intel. interacting suspiciously to say the least)
True dat. Even SEDITION under the Smith Act, which hasn't been used since 1961, must be for a seditious ACT and not merely a teaching or discussion. The formation of the SPP might be enough to indict certain cfr members for sedition thouth since they conspired with corrupt officials to commit a seditious action.
Attitudes determine what laws are made, what laws are tolerated, what laws are repealed. Attitude is responsible for ALL legislation. In our corrupt system special interest money and back room corporate contracts are a huge attitude adjuster but that wasn't the intent. Lincoln once said that nothing can succeed against the public sentiment. Jefferson said enlighten the people generally and tyranny vanishes.
Liberty requires equality of the right to be free from coercion, harm, robbery, fraud, murder & other clear and present danger. Liberty and justice for ALL! When one is free to abuse the rights of others it's some type of domination, slavery or abuse. Liberty means liberty for all. Protection of the rights of every individual requires a gov't that recognizes that protection and defense as its only role. Gov't OR a 'free' market may never violate anyone's rights. THAT is the outline.
If you had said a true libertarian is a "MINarchist" I would have applauded your depth of understanding of the various philosophies of liberty. Equating Anarchists and libertarians is not only incorrect, it does damage to the security of our constitution. The U.S. constitution is HEAVILY minarchist in intent. The erosion of our constitution is only helped by people who attack those who love liberty by equating them with those who seek chaos and inequality.
Hey dude, you seem like a pretty cool guy promoting a nice idea. I think one reason people look at libertarian philosophy so negatively is the same reason people look at communism, socialism, and complete capitolism with negative feelings: corruption! Maybe I should have watched the video you referred to before spouting what I think. I'd like to have a serious discussion though.
I'm not totally sure. I THINK people call those who aren't suckered by globalism left vs globalism right loony conspiracy theorists who live in their mom's basements and wear tinfoil hats...I guess to stop ELF cancer causing attacks by satellites or something...i'm not sure...but now freedom haters say libertarians and constitutionalists wear tinfoil hats.
You are not allowed to harm others, force them to do things or take their stuff. Everyone must have the same freedoms or it isn't the land of liberty. Guardians may parent but may not do anything to their kids that child services deems abusive mentally or physically, in other words harmful. Gov't exists to keep you and everyone else from harm and enforce your right to be free to do as you wish and keep what you have. Others may not harm you or steal from you.
Yeah the concept that you own your own life and no one may harm you or force you to do things or take your stuff without your permission...it's a radical idea in the land of liberty or of the free whatever you prefer to call it.
i love how tinfoil critic cuts off web pundit's video before he gets into arguments about child labor, oversight and other issues that expose the total lunacy of the libertarian philosophy. Keep using your amusing buzz words and phrases like "don't let the government take care of you from cradle to grave" and us rational people will continue to have a good laugh
The main point of his video, his central theme, was that libertarians are anarchists. This he put in the description. As for his other points, if you can just grasp that liberty means that EVERYONE has the right to be free from others harming them then all this BS about how libertarians want anarchy and won't protect anyone is seen for the BS it is.
Yay for our outsourced asian child labor and how cheap they make things for our corporations so they have more money to buy our politicians...yay. Look how smart i am...yay.
Right...that will continue with the Ron Paul presidency. If the children want to work, isn't their right?! If people want to use heroin, isn't their right?!!
Government, step off!!! Let the companies do what they want. Laissez Faire to the MAX!
Laissez faire to the point where others are harmed, abused, robbed or killed. That is why government exists, to protect our rights to be free from others harming us, and to be free to spend our money how we like, and to live our own lives without government interference if we are not harming others.
Let's all get ready to celebrate the launching of the EUROPEAN Council on Foreign Relations, the ECFR, in Berlin on November 9th. One step closer to authoritarian world government subordinating those pesky civil liberties that so often interfere with SAFETY and SECURITY.
The tendency of government, as we were warned by our founders, is to move toward tyranny and away from individual liberty.
Article 1 section 3 insures that SENATORS could be RECALLED by state legislatures if they serve monied interests instead of their constituencies. But that safeguard was removed by the 17th amendment just like non-apportioned taxes were made constitutional by the 16th. This is why Jefferson warned that bankers are more dangerous than standing armies.
It has been my belief throughout most of my life that by far the worst and most numerous enemies of the Constitution have always been within our own borders...and most of them are in high office...in BOTH business and gov't. The Constitution will never enforce itself and never has, it has to be enforced by those who believe in it...or it will perish.
Yes it is truly we the people who must defend it from those who view it as "just a piece of paper" and work daily toward its "subordination" to an authoritarian North American Parliment contrived in secrecy by unelected unaccountable "private" interests...
A good first step would be to watch my video on the 5th of November, go to the THISNOVEMBER5TH website and sign up to take part in this historic event. Remember, remember the 5th of November.
Lincoln noted that wolves and sheep define "liberty" differently. What could the founders have meant by "trading liberty for security you lose both" or "I'd rather be inconvenienced by TOO MUCH liberty than..?"
Let me THINK. When they say in the constitution habeus corpus will NOT be suspended what they REALLY meant was to do away with it for any american whose crimes get labeled as "harming america..." I THINK forcing a nation into a war 70% oppose sounds like LIBERTY, hey this IS FUN!
What could the founders have meant by "trading liberty for security you lose both"
It's horseshit. Sorry, but you *naturally* have to give up liberty with government. Some of your liberties are abbreviated so that others will be spared under any submission to law. Feel free to try and prove otherwise, but the saying is fundamentally flawed rhetoric. Thinking is for suckers. Vote Paul 08.
The ONLY liberties you have to give up under "government" is the liberty to violate the right to life, liberty, or property of any other person. Then the only laws are against what poses a "clear and present danger" to the life, liberty or property of another.
Watch the stick figure video a few times, it might sink in. I'm sorry you feel our constitution and the liberty our founders describe is horseshit.
If I were you I'd find a new country to live in. Stop attacking our constitution.
If you want to use government as a Wilsonian club to beat people over the head with until they accept your own personal morality I ask you this question:
Has any married couple in the history of the planet or mankind ever always agreed on right and wrong in every situation? If you are honest with your answer and you let that sink in until you grasp it fully, you will see the wisdom in not legislating morality. Blowback is always the result.
Animals' rights to life are more complicated in a culture where we raise them to slaughter and eat.
Although "criminal" attacks of children or adults are left to the state except where there are treaties, there ARE treaties about cruelty and abuse.
The geneva conventions and U.N. prohibitions of torture are TREATIES, & our constitution makes them the highest law of our land even if war criminals who violate these laws occupy our gov't.
And what exactly do you think child prostitution is? There's means of sexual assault (at least that's what we can call it before Libertarians name it a "victimless crime") where the child suffers no physical injury. Libertarians have a disgusting philosophy. Think I'll go dropkick that puppy.
"The ONLY liberties you have to give up under "government" is the liberty to violate the right to life, liberty, or property"
Gee, aren't you forgetting a few things there Tinfoil? Crack open that Constitution and take a real hard look. Even a half-hearted look should suffice, come to think of it. Your gross omission of things given up to gov't is quite telling.
What specifically have I omitted that is relevant? There may well be aspects of our constitution where the intent is other than the defense of life liberty & property. There may be things where the intent is diminish individual liberties and diminish states' rights. However overall the intent appears to be a union for providing for a common defense (life & liberty) and a stable economy (protecting property). I'd love to hear specifics refuting that.
"he intent is other than the defense of life liberty & property. There may be things where the intent is diminish individual liberties and diminish states' rights. However overall the intent ..."
Thank you! You agree then. You DO lose certain liberties in exchange for security for others. That's why the quote is full of crap.
I am still waiting for a specific example of this from our constitution. I bet if you dig through every line of the constitution you can find some aspect which isn't in defense of individual life, liberty & property.
If you DO then it is an unneccessary error. The founders were TRYING to create a constitution that would prevent the despotism they suffered under British rule. If you don't provide me with a specific, then these theoretical imperfections remain theoretical.
"security for others" means that you are not posing a threat to their life liberty or property. Torture and abuse pose a "clear and present danger" to life and liberty. It really is that simple. Government should be BRUTAL in defending these rights for each of us rather than engaged in eroding them to turn us into safe cattle and slaves for the investment class.
If we just followed the constitution it would solve most of the problems this nation faces.
"I am still waiting for a specific example of this from our constitution."
If you're waiting, then you simply haven't looked at it. On Constitutional authority, government takes your property via taxes and patents, your liberty via commerce regulation, the list goes on. Read A1S8. The government DOES intrude on these things under the Constitution, thus the quote is rhetoric and nonsense.
the apportionment requirement for taxation means you can simply choose not to buy and own things that are taxed. The income tax amendment was fraudulently ratified. Regardless of power to regulate commerce one is still free in his own state from federal regulation with one exception: TREATIES
Treaty law is a loophole often exploited by enemies of liberty and it will mean the end of the constitution, e.g. law of the Sea
How strong you think the example is is irrelevant. It's a clear example of giving up livberty and property for security. The 10th Amendment leaves the possibility of further restrictions *wide* open. That's why the quote is rhetoric. It's incompatible with the realities of American government.
So...your point is that our founders were IN FAVOR of placing the safety and security of others over the liberty of the individual? I don't think we disagree. Nor does that conflict with libertarian philosophy. Every individual has a right to have gov't defend his right to life, liberty and property. Liberty means liberty for EVERYBODY. Authoritarianism is when you want to legislate my activities that pose no clear and present danger to anyone but me.
The clear and present danger aspect of law is important because one could start getting totally absurd about one thing leading to another...the way the feds have with "regulating commerce" claiming jurisdiction over someone who robs a restaurant cuz the olives in the salad bar were trucked in from out of state.
"So...your point is that our founders were IN FAVOR of placing the safety and security of others over the liberty of the individual?" My point is that the founding fathers were NOT of one mind, and that anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doesn't know what they are talking about. As a general statement, they were all prepared to accept SOME form of restriction in order to enjoy certain securities. And your definition of Authoritarianism is just plain WRONG.
Not to go TOO far into the deep but sometimes what appears "just plain wrong" changes in appearance as we grow and explore further, expanding our minds to include other possibitlites and qualified perspectives.
For example, you could believe it is FACT that the law of gravity cannot be defied or suspended until you learn of or witness the law of aerodynamics in action.
"Now that that's settled. Putting aside the "freedom" to harm, abuse or endanger others...what are you talking about?"
Your property and liberty ARE taken under American constitutional government. It has nothing to do with stopping you from harming, abusing, or endangering other people. It has to do with a perceived benefit of *taking* from people for use towards some government benefit. That automatically dismisses the quote as rhetoric.
It is clear our founders never intended an "income tax." The only mention of such a notion in the constitution before the 16th amendment was its prohibition.
If you are automatically going to dismiss franklin's "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" as "flawed rhetoric" maybe you should provide a specific.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor...when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
I'm not talking only of income tax. They gave Congress the power to tax, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes," THAT ALONE is enough to invalidate the quote; it cannot be an absolute in the face of Constitutional reality. If it isn't absolute, then the only thing to consider is where to draw the line, and that makes the quote nothing but rhetoric. Congress was given the power to tax, regulate commerce, and various other powers that RESTRICT liberty and property.
Our founders didn't call for absolutely no government whatsoever, i.e. anarchy & they knew to HAVE a central gov't capable of defending the union and the rights in the constitution and bill of rights small tariffs would be necessary.
You sometimes see the quote as "liberty" instead of "essential liberty". I think Ben Franklin added the word essential because of people to who claim that liberty without anarchy is "flawed."
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." - "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." - James Madison
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
From Minsky "They who can give up essential liberty etc..." -Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This phrasing was also the motto in Historical Review of Pennsylvania, attributed to Franklin
Minsky also writes "It's important to note that this sentiment, with many variations, was much used in the Revolutionary period by Franklin and others."
I personally have seen variations attributed to Jefferson so I don't disagree with you that the sentiment predates the founders.
It is MIND BLOWING that while our gov't is CURRENTLY BEING RUN lock stock and barrel by corporations someone could argue that those who believe in liberty are helping corporations abuse people. Corporate run government is the literal definition of FASCISM. The CCCE and CFR military industrial complex/oil executives are waging war not only in the mideast against the will of the people, they are behind the SPP which is the foundation for the end of our constitution and liberties.
Libertarian means you believe in liberty. If you read the writings of our founders or if you perouse the constitution you will see the notion of liberty was intended to play a role
PLEASE JOIN THE WORLD REVOLUTION ON OCTOBER 15TH IN EVERY CITY AND VILLAGE ON EARTH. YOU CAN FIND THE EVENT ON FACEBOOK 'United for Global Change #15oct' PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD!
2y2dorg 4 months ago
Freedom sucks. Only statism and authortarian government can save us.
ComicPenius 5 months ago
i suggest you read more about the many schools of thought regarding anarchism. libertarianism is indeed much like some forms of anarchy, such as anarcho-syndicalism.
ambdukias66 11 months ago
Webpundit sucks.
sniper6081 3 years ago
humm, a ron paul supporter wearing a tin foil hat... how fitting.
greetingsearthlings1 3 years ago
It is very odd that WebPundit's YT and blog accounts are closed. I hope he is all right.
Ruby1gem 3 years ago
Webpundit is gone...maybe he´s got a new account?
Casar1973 3 years ago
Damn, was looking for Webpundit. He was my fav video poster. Probably pulled for his anti-Islamic views and videos.
DelMinor 3 years ago 2
His blog has closed as well, it damn shame hes gone. One of the finest people on here.
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago 2
Where has Webpundit gone???
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago 10
I don't know man. Could anyone help? Maybe someone know what happened with his account?
RastaPL 3 years ago 2
the FBI went in and killed him cause he was too much of a "threat"
redvaldez1990 2 years ago
Dude ron paul would be a bad leader. You see that's the purpose of being a President is to be the leader of Millions of People and that President has to make decisions that some of the people do not like sometimes but that is what voting is for, if that President is voted in then the majority of people must like Him or Her. Here's the thing ron paul says he's against imposing authority on people, but that is what a President must do to be a strong and effective leader.
Nightshift10000 3 years ago
how would he be bad im canadian do you know about the north american union?
do you want that bull shit to happen?
420bmxer 3 years ago
NO of course not, but like I said I'm a Conservative and We Conservatives want America to stay Sovereign and Canada to stay Sovereign seperately but I also want America To Stay America and not be broken into a confederal group of none allined states, that's the last thing I want and ron pual wants to do this to us, he also wants to break up the Government and which I don't like the Idea of big government I want Our Government to remain Strong and Stronger than all the others.
Nightshift10000 3 years ago
I honestly believe in finding the middle group between it all. Finding the Balance between Corperation and Government Is what I believe in not getting completely rid of one or the other or both.
Nightshift10000 3 years ago
Strong and effective? Sounds Authoritarian.. I prefer Fair and Balanced.. You sound like you want a Dictator.. Someone strong willed a tough guy.. The president should be for the people by the people. Someone who inspires his/her citizens to be a productive member of the society they guide. Yes the president has to make tough choices but the people should be at the forefront of his mind when making those decisions.
digitalgenitals 3 years ago
What sounded authoritarian about My statement. I just want a strong, resolute President that makes good decisions. I want America to remain strong and resolute as well. You sound like you want anarchy and listlessness. The People are the forefront of the decisions because THAT'S WHAT VOTING IS FOR YOU FREAKING MORON. God I am so freaking tired of explaining this. That's what voting is FOR! How many ways do I have to say it, and the Man Or Women that gets into the presidency I want to be strong.
Nightshift10000 3 years ago
Why are you slandering me? If someone goes against your opinion you feel the need to put them down? You know what buddy if you think the election system works so well why don't you explain how in the last two major elections there were discrepancies with the vote counts and how in this primary we see patterns of the same thing. The president is not picked by a majority popular vote. Delegates get two votes pledge one to their respective state majority and with the other vote as they please.
digitalgenitals 3 years ago
That means if you want a fair and balanced vote You need everyone in the electoral college to vote as they pledge(the constitution does not require the delegates to vote as pledged) they will and that'll only get you halfway their... Then you need the the absolute majority 270 electoral votes otherwise the twelfth amendment is put into play. That's a rarity.. But you see you're not voting for Prez your voting for someone else to vote for your candidate someone who is not required to vote fair.
digitalgenitals 3 years ago
Oh God go back to the conspiracy buff society.
Nightshift10000 3 years ago
Oh God Read the God damned constitution. Stop acting like you know better than people who are much more informed than you.
digitalgenitals 3 years ago
Oh and if someone attacks Me I defend Myself (viciously If need be). You are showing how much like ron paul you truely with you crybaby mentality when ever someone comes back at an attack like that and how listless you are in you desires.
Nightshift10000 3 years ago
MY GOD you sound like a total idiot. I know your probably some "LIE"beral idiot that wants to weaken this Country even more than it is now so screw you you "LIE"beral douchebag. Get informed on the systems that work and the ones that don't, Strong, WISE Leadership pays off in the end. Weak, listless leadership always fails.
Nightshift10000 3 years ago
I'd prefer someone with a strong intellect over a moron who doesn't even recognize who our true enemy is, or some puppet who staffs his whitehouse with all CFR members and does whatever Bilderbergers tell him to do.
If you don't understand the reality that these corporo-fascists are a million times more of a threat to our freedom and survival than a CIA created group of suicide bombers...if you think those who know the facts are "theorists" then your intellect is too weak to run this nation.
TinfoilCRITIC 3 years ago
Well I guess that's just cause you can't find any intellect yourself. You know you sound more like a "LIE"beral saying that the CIA created terrorism and that corporo-fascism. You talk about intellectuality, your just a left-wing conspiracy buff with no evidence to back up your statements and nothing but accusations and rhetoric. Promise Me something mister tinfoil idiot, promise Me you'll get a life or failing that do every one a favor and commit Japanese Sabaku so that no one else can suffer.
Nightshift10000 3 years ago
....jesus christ you look ridiculous...crappy video...
4bestrAft 3 years ago
bad typing
ondasd oppsVVV
HashyBee 3 years ago
Liberty is fine and good, but it's a GOOD thing to have social programs. I don't believe in letting corporation rule everything.
I'm all for government programs, and against the NUA, too bad the left and right are so polarized, we wont win with this kinda shit all over youtube, etc.....
HashyBee 3 years ago
Maybe you should have added the point that osama bin laden was out to take these liberties from america (according to bush, that is why he attacked, he hated the american freedoms). But now you guys have the patriot act 1+2 and all kinds of shit which makes me think that binladen is 2-0 ahead right now.
Milanotjuh 3 years ago
Hmmph, retard hater.
TinfoilCRITIC 3 years ago
what the fuck are you thinking wearing that tin foil hat.. you give a bad name to the rest of us. tisk tisk tisk
armynun 3 years ago
hmmph. Tinfoil hater.
TinfoilCRITIC 3 years ago
You had me... Right up until you used the term "Freedom haters." How ignorant. So anyone that disagrees with your philosophy hates freedom? Bullshit. It's that kind of rhetoric that causes many people, including myself, to come to the conclusion that Libertarians aren't the solution to our country's problems.
ARSodaKian 3 years ago
Hmmph. Freedom hater.
TinfoilCRITIC 3 years ago 5
johnnycash7001 4 years ago
The stick figures are too complicated for
"Webpundit" LOL!!!
AiresQX4 4 years ago
Libertarians are the same people who support legalizing drug use. Enough said.
rjfrjf65 4 years ago
You're implying that legalizing drug usage would be a bad thing. This is a fallacious statement. Legalizing the production, sale, and usage of drugs would completely undermine the dangerous black market that currently exists for these products. It would also give drug addicts a chance at rehabilitation, which is what they really need, instead of prison time.
Rishodi 4 years ago
the war on drugs is just a way for the government to control us. piss tests at work. piss testing people on parole. arresting people solely because they have a PLANT in their pocket. then sticking them in a building where they either get violent and tough or they get raped and humiliated. Great system of Justice in this country. and its getting worse
oldhacks 4 years ago 2
That "plant" you talk about, is harmful to their body, it affects their work, and corporations should have a right to do a drug test on their employees.
rjfrjf65 4 years ago
Hmmph, plant hater.
TinfoilCRITIC 3 years ago
No, it would give drug addicts an easier way to obtain the drugs that they are so addicted to. It would spread the poison of drug use even further through our society.
rjfrjf65 4 years ago
So you think that we should make alcohol illegal again? cuz thats the exact same thing they said about booze. And you can see what a great success prohibition was. I guess you're right. Drugs are best kept in the black market so only the Mafia can make any money off of it. screw society making money off of the drugs in our society. Give it all to the mafia you're right! what a brave soul you are for taking such a unique position.
oldhacks 4 years ago
Look up the difference between the addiction rates of methamphetamines and alcohol or ecstacy and alcohol. The difference between drugs and alcohol is you can get hooked on drugs on the first try, and then it will never let you go. I'm not denying that there is addiction to alcohol in this country, but the chances of getting addicted to drugs are much higher. Also, drugs can kill you the first time you take them, while you'd really have to drink a lot to kill yourself.
rjfrjf65 4 years ago
Alcohol and tobacco are already legal.
The problem is not legalization is responsibility, people accept that their decisions are superseded by someone who incompetent enough:). You see when someone knowingly drives without a seatbelt and gets killed you don't pay his insurance, because he got what he deserved. Real problem lies not within Libertarian domain, but within absent-minded or over-pampering parents domain. Jackasses from my high school are already DEAD , because of their stupidity,
vetromaster 3 years ago
not because of some government regulation. I'm not joking, but when I received a call from my parents and they dropped this stuff during the conversation, I just had to say - "They got what they deserved". If you are a jackass chances are that you won't survive for a long time, regardless of the regulations in place.
vetromaster 3 years ago
Ron Paul mixes Republican Conservatism with Paleolibertarianism which a school of thought founded by Lew Rockwell associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics & cultural conservatism in social thought.
Austrian economics, antifederalism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement's attitudes toward trade, commerce and statecraft.
"All forms of government intervention amount to an attack on prosperity." - Rockwell
2morrow2day4u 4 years ago
Mike Gravel is more libertarian then Ron Paul. Ron Paul is an anti abortionist.that is NOT libertarian. Mike Gravel is working to give us the right to vote as citizens. What could be more libertarian then that?Giving us citizens the right to keep our government in check and keep it from getting any bigger. If you're truly a libertarian then you'll support the most libertarian candidate. If you're just a follower of a current trend that thinks ron paul is "cool" then youll ignore all i just said.
oldhacks 4 years ago
He wants America to have a direct democracy. That would mean that we would vote on every single bill created by the Legislature. I don't know about you, but as far as all the elections we have at the state, local, and federal level, I vote enough. Both Gravel and Ron Paul are radical extremists.
rjfrjf65 4 years ago
False. I don't know where you got that idea, but you're quite mistaken.
Rishodi 4 years ago
this is how the national initiative works. First someone writes the bill,they form a petition, once it has enough signatures, then it gets voted on by us. then we have to vote on it again after 6 month deliberation in congress and society so that all the pros and cons can be weighed in, then we have a confirmation vote. the ONLY issues that will become National initiatives will be issues that Americans are united on.
oldhacks 4 years ago
And we will only vote on 2 initiatives a year. Thats a very far cry from "vote on every single bill created by the Legislature". Its not radical, in fact it would have been in the constitution but Washington and Franklin left it out to protect corporations from citizens. In the constitution it would have been in the section "right to protest, right to petition, and then to vote to make laws" but they left it out to protect the slave merchants.
oldhacks 4 years ago
I'm just wondering if "Oldhacks" agrees with this video? Because if he does then he probably stop talking bad about Ron Paul because this is exactly what he stands for!! I like Mike Gravel and Kucinich but they dont quite understand that big government is not good and socialistic healthcare would be a disaster!!
AiresQX4 4 years ago
Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian. He just uses them as he uses everybody to get more support to get more MONEY. its a total scam and I'm sick of people being too stupid to recognize it. He's been in Congress for 30 years yet his record is abysmal! nobody knows how to think critically anymore. they just follow the herd. even if that herd is going over a cliff.
oldhacks 3 years ago
its funny that you think that you're more informed then they guy that ended the draft, the guy that fought Nixon all the way to the supreme court, the guy that ended nuclear testing in the northern pacific, the guy that worked with congress to impeach Nixon, the guy that exposed the monstrous behavior that was going on behind the scenes during the vietnam war. Yea I'm sure you know more then the one man that achieved all of these things... an arrogant moronic majority is whats killing us.
oldhacks 3 years ago
and never once at any time has Mike ever said he wants UHC. He simply wants to make medicine more affordable by allowing ppl to get their meds from Canada where it's half the price.
oldhacks 3 years ago
Life isn't so simple. I don't think Libertarianist are Anarchists, but there is something to be said that a true Libertarian state in modern days would fall into Anarchy.
Besides life isn't so simple that it can be solved by simple adherence to a few individual rights. Morality isn't black and white, thats an old Christian sentiment. We need laws and a constitution that reflects the gray areas of life.
SubSpecieAeternati 4 years ago
libertarians are people that believe in the right to self governance and individual freedom and a fair economy where everyone has a chance to get rich!. thats libertarianism in a nut shell.
oldhacks 4 years ago
It's amazing how people bitch about their taxes, bitch about the government, bitch about this or that, and then call anyone who opposes that an "Anarchist" or "Radical lefty". People seem to want an excuse for not supporting Ron Paul. Yet, they don't hesitate to support canidates who flip-flop on issues, lie, and have ties to Corporate and military interests. This country is going to hell, and it's all because of ignorance. People will fight liberty to the bitter end, but say they want it.
puresrtrash 4 years ago
great video man. it's attracting some real truth haters though....
cbgames 4 years ago
damn it you're a dumb ass.
tylerhaahr 4 years ago
TranquilloGBF 4 years ago
your an idoit
pls24 4 years ago
don't you know a joke when you see it
still it doesn't change the facts
bush=evil & stupidity
TranquilloGBF 4 years ago
You can do that with any name, including yours.
bosunbilly 4 years ago
duh it a joke
TranquilloGBF 4 years ago
There is a major problem, though. What is truly justly acquired property that you can fight for? Is the oil from Africa, sold to us by rapacious governments, without money given to peasants, our property? Are trees logged in a country that is decimating its forests and extinguishing its native species our justly acquired property? Are animals tortured (like veal calves) for our consumption justly our property? The truth is that we need some government intervention.
Rationalific 4 years ago
You stole my idea!!!! Dang it I hate it when that happens. Well since I may have never have gotten around to it, KUDOS for being brilliant.
notyouneek 4 years ago
It's somewhat natural that people who aquire power, will take advantage of it... even at the expense of others.
Selfishness is the basic human element. Without it, we'd be ants. I wonder if that'd be better...
TAKENnameARGH 4 years ago
Just look a toddler. Thinking of others has to be taught and learned. I also agree with Ron Paul that using government beaurocrats to FORCE people into virtue is the wrong tool. That is the domain of charities, churches, families ane friends. Paying taxes so the gov't can force your neighbors to have the personality you approve of is just wasted money and if you keep trying it they won't be inspired to work at all and we'll be living in an exact replica of the former Soviet Union.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
If taxation is theft, how is the government supposed to protect individual rights without any income?
sadius24 4 years ago
The founders outlawed unapportioned taxes IN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION. The 16th amendment in 1913 was never ratified by the states but was put in place by fraud. We take more than half our federal income through tarriffs and user fees like the gas tax. The income tax and the IRS and all the people they stress out and all the lives they destroy---absolutely pointless. The amount we take in through tariffs and user fees TODAY EXCEEDS the entire federal budget we had a decade ago.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Not only is the IRS freezing accounts and putting most small business owners out of business creating unemployment, putting otherwise law abiding citizens in jail, seizing their family's homes--the tax code is thousands of pages and impossible for trained accountants to know or understand let alone the average american. TAXING INCOME has a chilling effect on the economy in a great many ways. The IRS is idiocy and quite literally organized crime and slavery.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Ron Paul - thinks america should reflect CHRISTAIN "values". what about seperation of church and state?? Also is a pro lifer; great more unwanted population. Point 3 the governmentsould have the power of force to protect the rights of it citizens.BUT.. it seems you also want less govt and moreprivate control? How about letting Armalite run the Union?
whankerNJ 4 years ago
Ron Paul is a pro-life christian who believes that the federal government is LIMITED by the constitution from determining what is murder and what the punishment for murder should be (see the 10th amendment). He also believes that the government may not ever force anyone to believe anything or adhere to any particular faith.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
What we have now is corporatism. Corporations run our gov't lock stock and barrell. We now have 100% PRIVATE control over the federal gov't via the CFR, its defense and energy contractors and lobbyists like big pharm.
Ron Paul wants gov't contractors to be legally prohibited from lobbying.
It's OK that ppl have control over their OWN private property so long as they don't impinge on ANY other individual's rights or property...thus pollution would be regulated.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
It is a radical idea that private individuals control what they own so long as nobody gets hurt, I know. Crazy talk in the land of the free. OWNING the gov't is what we have NOW and what libertarians want to OUTLAW. This isn't complicated. You can't have control over your own body and money if someone else has control over everone's gov't and can force you to buy their health insurance and stop using your herbal remedy.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
I agree. Good hearted philosophy. Andrew Jackson style. But, Ron Paul is not the person to help lead your ideals (if he sincerly beleives the same). He is a sheep not a sheppard. I checked out the liberty vid: good recommendation.
whankerNJ 4 years ago
- pollution will never be regulated- too much money in the pain; it will be attempted to be handled better ..CASH COMPROMISE>
whankerNJ 4 years ago
Lookie lookie the "church" believes that it is murder after conceptopn- who cares?! All those bible votes(that's who) that ron paul Will support into public policies and standards. All i'm saying is it will not stop there with him' a supposed man of science.
whankerNJ 4 years ago
Libertarians ignore the fact that most citizens have two options - work, or starve. Not much of a choice.
But Libertarians still want to repeal the minimum wage, collective bargaining, safety regulations, sexual harassment laws, and every other law that workers have fought for.
No wonder so many Libertarians are teenagers - they've never worked a day in their lives.
LoonyRonPaul 4 years ago
Loony relax, we'll still force everyone to pay for your food stamps. It's gonna be okay. You won't have to get a job and you can still chat on the internet all day.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
TinfoilCRITIC relax, I work and pay my taxes - unlike Paultards.
I've noticed how you won't refute the Libertarian agenda.
I'll say it again so that everyone can understand what Libertarians stand for:
Libertarians want to repeal the minimum wage, union laws, health and safety regulations, sexual harassment laws, and every other law that workers have fought for.
No wonder Libertarians get less than 1% of the vote.
LoonyRonPaul 4 years ago
the unions have been bought out. they need to be abolished. its just as much a racket as the racket they were created to contest.
the minimum wage fiasco is legitimate because they use the minimum wage as means to toy with our individual liberty i.e. the price of living rises but they wait till the very last minute to raise the minimum wage. it's a scam. Of course we need a minimum wage requirement but the feds aren't using it for what its there for.
oldhacks 3 years ago
What you want is to sluff off the hard issues - call those "state issues" and say "are you saying states cant handle such issues". WHat the fuch is a state, you moron? The issue has to be dealt with by people. You just want to sluff off all real issues to someone else, while you can have this la la land of not dealing with the real conflicts that come from conflicting rights, and conflicting self interests.
MarkDouglasC 4 years ago
And here is another clue you idiot. The states right appoach (a cop out, with a history of slavery, etc) wont work on pollution, you moron. A lot of things wont. But if you cant fuccing figure out why a state by state approach wont work, I cant help your idiot ass. Why not just say its a "county" issue. Or a "city" issue. Or a "block" issue. Its a crock.
MarkDouglasC 4 years ago
Libertarian is such a vague piece of fluff that its really meaningless. Hey moron, the problem comes when a CONFLICT comes between two people. For example, on guy wants to burn the dirtiest coal on earth, in ways the pollute the hell out of his neighbors and harms their lungs. Ron Paul would not allow citizens to demand federal pollution laws. Why not -- its not in consitution. Insanity.
MarkDouglasC 4 years ago
Mark, I'll say this slowly so you understand. HE -- LEAVES -- THE -- POLUTION -- LAWS -- TO -- THE -- STATES. Are you saying that state governments are incapable of handling what the federal government screws up anyhow? No wonder you consider libertarianism a vague piece of fluff, you don't understand its most basic fundamentals.
luckyday24 4 years ago
Say is slower moron. This "leave it to the states thing" is a crock, and always has been. States rights was the biggest excuse for keeping slavery. (Religion was the biggest excuse for starting).
MarkDouglasC 4 years ago
The state thing is just a dodge you idiot. The state would have the same dilemma, jack off. HOw do you balance one guys right to create energy, with another guys right to breathe clean air? You just want this cop out crap. I understand the fundamentals a lot better than you. I know a lot more history, and what has been done with this cop out. Doesnt fool me, looks like it fooled you.
MarkDouglasC 4 years ago
Ron Paul calls himself libertarian, but Hilter called himself a man of the people. So what. Ron Paul also believes(see below) that even if we citizens demand our congressmen pass labor laws, civil rights laws, safety laws, pollution laws, we cant have them. Why? Cause by some lunacy, Ron Paul thinks we have to put such things in the CONSTITUTION. As if that is magic. If it were magic, we wouldnt have had slavery.
MarkDouglasC 4 years ago
Funny -- cause Ron Paul calls himself libertarian - but he considers slavery to be a state right. He is against slavery, of course. But he thinks if a state wants it, the fed government -- nor anyone else -- should stop it. Ask him. Go ahead.
MarkDouglasC 4 years ago
MarkDouglasC
You're right - Ron Paul is a neo-confederate. That's why he's a friend of the John Birch Society.
I'm glad that you get it, but I think that most Paultards have been brainwashed by Alex Jones beyond repair.
LoonyRonPaul 4 years ago
praying,"nothing is free" Except for my body,my soul, my labor,and my right to keep them as such at any reasonable cost.from you or anyone else.
jeffv2bfree 4 years ago
health care isn't a right
wallba 4 years ago 2
I just looked at your channel and, as a name like "PrayingForWar" would have one expect, see that the government has been indoctrinating you sufficiently enough to make any answer to this a waste of time. If you are so hellbent on war, have you thought of going yourself or sending your kids? I wish you peace in your heart.
hrmfaeryqueen 4 years ago 3
well done.ill bet(crazy) dresses in all black for his daily job as well.
jeffv2bfree 4 years ago
hey i do lol.
zafada 4 years ago
what about each individual's right to healthcare? libertarianism doesn't like that.
or each individual's right to public education?
nope, that's a no-no in libertarianism too...
yep you're right, ron paul is totally in favor of individual rights.
dexbuddy 4 years ago
Your statements are not correct. Of course each individual has a right to healthcare and education. The question is if CITIZENS will be empowered take responsibility themselves to fund those things privately or if they expect a big central government to do everything for them. Our Consitution has very limited role for central government. If you did not have to pay income tax, for example and there is no LAW requiring it, you would have money to fund these necessary things.
hrmfaeryqueen 4 years ago 2
well i think you could thank libertarians for protecting your property, but i doubt you will have any when the market creates such terrible wage slavery that you cant get any property to protect
PinoX7 4 years ago
Great Vid Man. Ron Paul will show us the way to freedom.
cbough88 4 years ago 2
Webpundit sucks! You should've put more time commenting him on his views. I will check out the link, looks pretty cool.
Dicecube78 4 years ago
"Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day."
Thomas Jefferson
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Tyranny boils down to men with guns telling you what you can't do or what you must do while you pose no clear and present danger to others. Regardless of the legal context or the semantic dance, military superiority calls the shots, subject only to majority public opinion which has its effects not only on the families of soldiers but on the soldiers, cops & agents themselves.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
If you try that in court the corporate sycophant judge will throw it out. Ultimately you are right. But we are an occupied nation enforced by controlled media. Most people aren't ready for what you are talking about yet, the REAL constitution, and the REAL state constitutions and technical definitions of jurisdictions and personhood. First we have to overthrow the CFR shadow gov't and clean house on their thugs in the intelligence community, state and defense depts and media.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
At first when I seen you wearing that tinfoil
hat I thought you were another one of them retards but then I seen the multiple stars and
I always know if it's anti Ron Paul because
they always have just one star.. But anyway I think you summed it up by stating that people that dont like Paul simply hate the constitution and would love the NAU. In other words TRADERS!!!!!
AiresQX4 4 years ago
Not every crime commited by our government is Treason. The Constitution lays down a very narrow definition of treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
droplproject 4 years ago
If you can prove that the government aided Al Quida or other factions that have shown themselves to be our enemies then you have proven treason, else you have only shown the presence of tyranny.
droplproject 4 years ago
drop; see the article containing sibel edmonds in the london times.(f.b.i. overheard al-queda and u.s. intel. interacting suspiciously to say the least)
jeffv2bfree 4 years ago
True dat. Even SEDITION under the Smith Act, which hasn't been used since 1961, must be for a seditious ACT and not merely a teaching or discussion. The formation of the SPP might be enough to indict certain cfr members for sedition thouth since they conspired with corrupt officials to commit a seditious action.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
drop;which is what they are doing with the fed. reserve.
jeffv2bfree 4 years ago
I support you tinfoil dude!
docakh 4 years ago 4
Attitudes determine what laws are made, what laws are tolerated, what laws are repealed. Attitude is responsible for ALL legislation. In our corrupt system special interest money and back room corporate contracts are a huge attitude adjuster but that wasn't the intent. Lincoln once said that nothing can succeed against the public sentiment. Jefferson said enlighten the people generally and tyranny vanishes.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Liberty requires equality of the right to be free from coercion, harm, robbery, fraud, murder & other clear and present danger. Liberty and justice for ALL! When one is free to abuse the rights of others it's some type of domination, slavery or abuse. Liberty means liberty for all. Protection of the rights of every individual requires a gov't that recognizes that protection and defense as its only role. Gov't OR a 'free' market may never violate anyone's rights. THAT is the outline.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
If you had said a true libertarian is a "MINarchist" I would have applauded your depth of understanding of the various philosophies of liberty. Equating Anarchists and libertarians is not only incorrect, it does damage to the security of our constitution. The U.S. constitution is HEAVILY minarchist in intent. The erosion of our constitution is only helped by people who attack those who love liberty by equating them with those who seek chaos and inequality.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VOTE RON PAUL 2008!
RON PAUL WILL:
-tighten border security to keep out terrorists and illegal immigrants
-Get and stay out of war
-cut unnessesary taxes
-stopping the NAU
4theUSA 4 years ago 2
Very cool video! I've been thinking of doing something pretty similar- including the tin foil hat:) I guess I'll have to be more creative:)
Paul/Kucinich vs Kucinich/Paul!
Take back *both* parties from the CFR!
momerath42 4 years ago
Hey dude, you seem like a pretty cool guy promoting a nice idea. I think one reason people look at libertarian philosophy so negatively is the same reason people look at communism, socialism, and complete capitolism with negative feelings: corruption! Maybe I should have watched the video you referred to before spouting what I think. I'd like to have a serious discussion though.
kerplunkid 4 years ago
I don't get the aluminum foil hat thing. What's the joke?
rpforliberty2008 4 years ago
I'm not totally sure. I THINK people call those who aren't suckered by globalism left vs globalism right loony conspiracy theorists who live in their mom's basements and wear tinfoil hats...I guess to stop ELF cancer causing attacks by satellites or something...i'm not sure...but now freedom haters say libertarians and constitutionalists wear tinfoil hats.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Oh, I see it's a weak ad hominem made by people who can't back up their arguments with facts. I get it.
hillaryyo2008 4 years ago
You are not allowed to harm others, force them to do things or take their stuff. Everyone must have the same freedoms or it isn't the land of liberty. Guardians may parent but may not do anything to their kids that child services deems abusive mentally or physically, in other words harmful. Gov't exists to keep you and everyone else from harm and enforce your right to be free to do as you wish and keep what you have. Others may not harm you or steal from you.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
I don't like Ron Paul. I Like Mike Gravel.
gravel08 dot us
Cool animation though.
JakePelka 4 years ago
Yeah the concept that you own your own life and no one may harm you or force you to do things or take your stuff without your permission...it's a radical idea in the land of liberty or of the free whatever you prefer to call it.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
TinfoilCRITIC
Libertarians also assert that child prostitution is OK because it's consensual.
No wonder the Libertarian Party is such a joke.
LoonyRonPaul 4 years ago
i love u tube so much better real tv
bubbi316 4 years ago
i love how tinfoil critic cuts off web pundit's video before he gets into arguments about child labor, oversight and other issues that expose the total lunacy of the libertarian philosophy. Keep using your amusing buzz words and phrases like "don't let the government take care of you from cradle to grave" and us rational people will continue to have a good laugh
sunsfan8890 4 years ago
The main point of his video, his central theme, was that libertarians are anarchists. This he put in the description. As for his other points, if you can just grasp that liberty means that EVERYONE has the right to be free from others harming them then all this BS about how libertarians want anarchy and won't protect anyone is seen for the BS it is.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Yay for liberty! and Child Labor
wookieproductions 4 years ago
Yay for our outsourced asian child labor and how cheap they make things for our corporations so they have more money to buy our politicians...yay. Look how smart i am...yay.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Right...that will continue with the Ron Paul presidency. If the children want to work, isn't their right?! If people want to use heroin, isn't their right?!!
Government, step off!!! Let the companies do what they want. Laissez Faire to the MAX!
wookieproductions 4 years ago
Laissez faire to the point where others are harmed, abused, robbed or killed. That is why government exists, to protect our rights to be free from others harming us, and to be free to spend our money how we like, and to live our own lives without government interference if we are not harming others.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
please watch ENDGAME google Alex Jones ENDGAME, check it out.
JolliZon3 4 years ago
Let's all get ready to celebrate the launching of the EUROPEAN Council on Foreign Relations, the ECFR, in Berlin on November 9th. One step closer to authoritarian world government subordinating those pesky civil liberties that so often interfere with SAFETY and SECURITY.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
The tendency of government, as we were warned by our founders, is to move toward tyranny and away from individual liberty.
Article 1 section 3 insures that SENATORS could be RECALLED by state legislatures if they serve monied interests instead of their constituencies. But that safeguard was removed by the 17th amendment just like non-apportioned taxes were made constitutional by the 16th. This is why Jefferson warned that bankers are more dangerous than standing armies.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
It has been my belief throughout most of my life that by far the worst and most numerous enemies of the Constitution have always been within our own borders...and most of them are in high office...in BOTH business and gov't. The Constitution will never enforce itself and never has, it has to be enforced by those who believe in it...or it will perish.
bionicmisfit 4 years ago
Yes it is truly we the people who must defend it from those who view it as "just a piece of paper" and work daily toward its "subordination" to an authoritarian North American Parliment contrived in secrecy by unelected unaccountable "private" interests...
A good first step would be to watch my video on the 5th of November, go to the THISNOVEMBER5TH website and sign up to take part in this historic event. Remember, remember the 5th of November.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Lincoln noted that wolves and sheep define "liberty" differently. What could the founders have meant by "trading liberty for security you lose both" or "I'd rather be inconvenienced by TOO MUCH liberty than..?"
Let me THINK. When they say in the constitution habeus corpus will NOT be suspended what they REALLY meant was to do away with it for any american whose crimes get labeled as "harming america..." I THINK forcing a nation into a war 70% oppose sounds like LIBERTY, hey this IS FUN!
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
What could the founders have meant by "trading liberty for security you lose both"
It's horseshit. Sorry, but you *naturally* have to give up liberty with government. Some of your liberties are abbreviated so that others will be spared under any submission to law. Feel free to try and prove otherwise, but the saying is fundamentally flawed rhetoric. Thinking is for suckers. Vote Paul 08.
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
The ONLY liberties you have to give up under "government" is the liberty to violate the right to life, liberty, or property of any other person. Then the only laws are against what poses a "clear and present danger" to the life, liberty or property of another.
Watch the stick figure video a few times, it might sink in. I'm sorry you feel our constitution and the liberty our founders describe is horseshit.
If I were you I'd find a new country to live in. Stop attacking our constitution.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
If you want to use government as a Wilsonian club to beat people over the head with until they accept your own personal morality I ask you this question:
Has any married couple in the history of the planet or mankind ever always agreed on right and wrong in every situation? If you are honest with your answer and you let that sink in until you grasp it fully, you will see the wisdom in not legislating morality. Blowback is always the result.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Bzzt. We can, do, and SHOULD legislate morality. It keeps me from dropkicking puppy dogs at will or selling my children as sex slaves.
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
Animals' rights to life are more complicated in a culture where we raise them to slaughter and eat.
Although "criminal" attacks of children or adults are left to the state except where there are treaties, there ARE treaties about cruelty and abuse.
The geneva conventions and U.N. prohibitions of torture are TREATIES, & our constitution makes them the highest law of our land even if war criminals who violate these laws occupy our gov't.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
And what exactly do you think child prostitution is? There's means of sexual assault (at least that's what we can call it before Libertarians name it a "victimless crime") where the child suffers no physical injury. Libertarians have a disgusting philosophy. Think I'll go dropkick that puppy.
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
"The ONLY liberties you have to give up under "government" is the liberty to violate the right to life, liberty, or property"
Gee, aren't you forgetting a few things there Tinfoil? Crack open that Constitution and take a real hard look. Even a half-hearted look should suffice, come to think of it. Your gross omission of things given up to gov't is quite telling.
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
What specifically have I omitted that is relevant? There may well be aspects of our constitution where the intent is other than the defense of life liberty & property. There may be things where the intent is diminish individual liberties and diminish states' rights. However overall the intent appears to be a union for providing for a common defense (life & liberty) and a stable economy (protecting property). I'd love to hear specifics refuting that.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
"he intent is other than the defense of life liberty & property. There may be things where the intent is diminish individual liberties and diminish states' rights. However overall the intent ..."
Thank you! You agree then. You DO lose certain liberties in exchange for security for others. That's why the quote is full of crap.
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
I am still waiting for a specific example of this from our constitution. I bet if you dig through every line of the constitution you can find some aspect which isn't in defense of individual life, liberty & property.
If you DO then it is an unneccessary error. The founders were TRYING to create a constitution that would prevent the despotism they suffered under British rule. If you don't provide me with a specific, then these theoretical imperfections remain theoretical.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
"security for others" means that you are not posing a threat to their life liberty or property. Torture and abuse pose a "clear and present danger" to life and liberty. It really is that simple. Government should be BRUTAL in defending these rights for each of us rather than engaged in eroding them to turn us into safe cattle and slaves for the investment class.
If we just followed the constitution it would solve most of the problems this nation faces.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
"I am still waiting for a specific example of this from our constitution."
If you're waiting, then you simply haven't looked at it. On Constitutional authority, government takes your property via taxes and patents, your liberty via commerce regulation, the list goes on. Read A1S8. The government DOES intrude on these things under the Constitution, thus the quote is rhetoric and nonsense.
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
Dude THAT was your example? WEAK.
the apportionment requirement for taxation means you can simply choose not to buy and own things that are taxed. The income tax amendment was fraudulently ratified. Regardless of power to regulate commerce one is still free in his own state from federal regulation with one exception: TREATIES
Treaty law is a loophole often exploited by enemies of liberty and it will mean the end of the constitution, e.g. law of the Sea
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
"Dude THAT was your example? WEAK"
How strong you think the example is is irrelevant. It's a clear example of giving up livberty and property for security. The 10th Amendment leaves the possibility of further restrictions *wide* open. That's why the quote is rhetoric. It's incompatible with the realities of American government.
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
So...your point is that our founders were IN FAVOR of placing the safety and security of others over the liberty of the individual? I don't think we disagree. Nor does that conflict with libertarian philosophy. Every individual has a right to have gov't defend his right to life, liberty and property. Liberty means liberty for EVERYBODY. Authoritarianism is when you want to legislate my activities that pose no clear and present danger to anyone but me.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
The clear and present danger aspect of law is important because one could start getting totally absurd about one thing leading to another...the way the feds have with "regulating commerce" claiming jurisdiction over someone who robs a restaurant cuz the olives in the salad bar were trucked in from out of state.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
"So...your point is that our founders were IN FAVOR of placing the safety and security of others over the liberty of the individual?" My point is that the founding fathers were NOT of one mind, and that anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doesn't know what they are talking about. As a general statement, they were all prepared to accept SOME form of restriction in order to enjoy certain securities. And your definition of Authoritarianism is just plain WRONG.
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
As i said, no two ppl including all married cpls in history were of "one mind." but we DO sometimes agree on definitions.
adjective 1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom.
Now that that's settled. Putting aside the "freedom" to harm, abuse or endanger others...what are you talking about?
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Not to go TOO far into the deep but sometimes what appears "just plain wrong" changes in appearance as we grow and explore further, expanding our minds to include other possibitlites and qualified perspectives.
For example, you could believe it is FACT that the law of gravity cannot be defied or suspended until you learn of or witness the law of aerodynamics in action.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
"Now that that's settled. Putting aside the "freedom" to harm, abuse or endanger others...what are you talking about?"
Your property and liberty ARE taken under American constitutional government. It has nothing to do with stopping you from harming, abusing, or endangering other people. It has to do with a perceived benefit of *taking* from people for use towards some government benefit. That automatically dismisses the quote as rhetoric.
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
It is clear our founders never intended an "income tax." The only mention of such a notion in the constitution before the 16th amendment was its prohibition.
If you are automatically going to dismiss franklin's "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" as "flawed rhetoric" maybe you should provide a specific.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor...when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
I'm not talking only of income tax. They gave Congress the power to tax, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes," THAT ALONE is enough to invalidate the quote; it cannot be an absolute in the face of Constitutional reality. If it isn't absolute, then the only thing to consider is where to draw the line, and that makes the quote nothing but rhetoric. Congress was given the power to tax, regulate commerce, and various other powers that RESTRICT liberty and property.
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
Our founders didn't call for absolutely no government whatsoever, i.e. anarchy & they knew to HAVE a central gov't capable of defending the union and the rights in the constitution and bill of rights small tariffs would be necessary.
You sometimes see the quote as "liberty" instead of "essential liberty". I think Ben Franklin added the word essential because of people to who claim that liberty without anarchy is "flawed."
Yet the intent of the founders is clear.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." - "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." - James Madison
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Actually, Franklin claimed he never said it. It predates the Revolution and it is very unlikely it came from any of the founders...
niksilvourbolt 4 years ago
From Minsky "They who can give up essential liberty etc..." -Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This phrasing was also the motto in Historical Review of Pennsylvania, attributed to Franklin
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Minsky also writes "It's important to note that this sentiment, with many variations, was much used in the Revolutionary period by Franklin and others."
I personally have seen variations attributed to Jefferson so I don't disagree with you that the sentiment predates the founders.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Anarchy is the extreme form of libertarianism, just like Communism is an extreme form of authoritarianism.
The rest of webpundit's video still stands.
Why do common citizens support Ron Paul?
Buisness needs a leash in the age of mass communication -- like WP said, remember the robber barons?
ouwierd404 4 years ago
It is MIND BLOWING that while our gov't is CURRENTLY BEING RUN lock stock and barrel by corporations someone could argue that those who believe in liberty are helping corporations abuse people. Corporate run government is the literal definition of FASCISM. The CCCE and CFR military industrial complex/oil executives are waging war not only in the mideast against the will of the people, they are behind the SPP which is the foundation for the end of our constitution and liberties.
TinfoilCRITIC 4 years ago
Libertarian means you believe in liberty. If you read the writings of our founders or if you perouse the constitution you will see the notion of liberty was intended to play a role