Ron Paul Question.

[HighDesert]

How many here think that it'd be ethical to support Ron Paul knowing that he still supports 'statist' philosophy?

Does being cognizant of a certain ethical view curtail you from participating in a system of control that is slanted against you?

Especially when there's a unique opportunity to bring together a very diverse range of individuals representing the free thinkers of the world?


I don't want to come across as someone who is simply spamming this board with Ron Paul propaganda.  I'm posing a serious question to a group of individuals who seem to concur with much of what I most closely understand as being truth.  And I'm looking forward to the feedback - but don't assume I'm some lapdog for corporate control.  I'm very much aware of the facts of the current system of control.

Before you make your decision watch a video that was put together from the Oregon Republican Party Straw Poll:


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCVo1HT10k4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCVo1HT10k4</a><!-- m -->

This was from a Ron Paul 'supporter'.


Maybe someone should start a 'No State Project' meetup. 



HD

[NonEntity]

I have some real problems with Ron Paul.  Of all of the politicians I'm aware of he is the (by FAR) most principled.  Yet he opposes freedom of travel.  His very actions support theft.  In some ways it is logical to support less coercion over more, but then giving sanction to the idea of coercion is a very bad idea for it blurs the ideological idea of freedom. 

(Political) Voting is an act of violence. 

So while I admire Paul's guts to stand up against the majority, I still find him immoral in that he only has principles up to a limited point, beyond which he is a thug like the rest of his profession.

- NonE

[learnin2]

NonEntity Wrote:I have some real problems with Ron Paul.  Of all of the politicians I'm aware of he is the (by FAR) most principled.  Yet he opposes freedom of travel.  His very actions support theft.  In some ways it is logical to support less coercion over more, but then giving sanction to the idea of coercion is a very bad idea for it blurs the ideological idea of freedom. 

(Political) Voting is an act of violence. 

So while I admire Paul's guts to stand up against the majority, I still find him immoral in that he only has principles up to a limited point, beyond which he is a thug like the rest of his profession.

- NonE

Someone will get elected, whether you vote or not. What person show more principle?

[Lummox3]

Ron Paul is a great "self defence" vote.

As an analogue way of thinking, with obviously mad one testicled nazi dictator's at one end and no one at the other, Mr. Paul is nearer to no one than Hitler.

Vote for him?

Why not - if you can spare the time and the effort and you are still a citizen etc. It puts some of the more important ideas out there.

Just to give the fed a headache or more popular recognition of what they are up to is a start. It's not a finish, but it's a start.

[NonEntity]

learnin2 Wrote:Someone will get elected, whether you vote or not. What person show more principle?

So at a drunken frat party where someone is getting gang raped, you might as well join in anyway, right? 

- NonE

[Lummox3]

Well it's more that there are a gang who want to rape and one elderly gent who wants to just kiss her a bit and maybe cop a feel.

I'd make that trade if it's the best that can happen right now.

The principle is shit, but think of the victim!

[NonEntity]

Lummox3 Wrote:Well it's more that there are a gang who want to rape and one elderly gent who wants to just kiss her a bit and maybe cop a feel.

I think I'll disagree.  I see it as the rape is GOING ON, it is not being contemplated.  It is going on and has been going on, and so joining in is giving sanction to it and helping it's continuation.

- NonE

[thirdeye]

Being a registered voter is just another public contract that uses your "name" to creat a benefit. You are the fiduciary of that name and the beneficiary of the trust created by the people who use it and offer you the benefits. It is just a relationship between you and people who offer all the great and wonderful benefits from voting to government cheese. Kind of like how the people in Ireland got the "benefit" of breathing the air (remember where I said the tiny windows in older Irish homes were because the air was being taxed, not because it looked cute). I think that the trust that exists needs to go so you no longer have fiduciary liability no matter WHO gets in that fruity little office of fantasy. It is an arduous process to actually begin to live in the Republic instead of just speculating of its supposed existence like Ron Paul does.

[Lummox3]

For me it's just a practical self defence argument.

I agree the principle is nonsense but that's not why I would vote for Ron Paul. Either way nothing will change, but one way some ideas that really need to get out there will do.

[eye2i2hear]

While I feel both 'anal'olgies are getting at the central aspect, morality, I feel both are missing the (w)hole a bit.  :-X
If we weren't dealing with a morality issue, then sure, voting* for the lesser frequency is one's honorable option to take.

"Voting"* for Paul, imo, is not going for (aka putting one's own mark upon) a guy who wants to kiss/comp a feel :-* ie "harass".  Its more like supporting the guy that promises he'll ensure she's never impregnated (he'll "protect her borders") ie "herass" rather than her vagina.  But he's going in (and out and in and out...) none the less.  No mere touchie-feelie here.  [political voting* imo also acknowledges a validation of "representative authority", be it public or subconciously]

And, imho, such "voting"* isn't necessarily being the next or last frat (or fat cat) guy in, tho its closer than the kissie/feelie dude 4sure.  I suppose voting* is more like being a gambler who's put money on "his guy" that's to be later judged by the rape victim to have pleased her the most... all the while having been doing such because such is "necessary".  That's the message I see that's heard.

Also, I think voting*, even if "secretly", puts a stamp of approval (moral validation) on the likes of gang rape, plantation slavery, mafioso protection racketeering, and armed robbery, aka gang methodology.  [how "secret" is it really tho, as after all each one registered; and there's the validation of the methodology]  Stefan compares it to saying one can become (or support) a Roman Catholic pope in the hope of having Catholicism abolished (or weakened).  Ditto that in "voting" for my mafioso hit man or plantation master.

Lastly, I think voting* -Ron Paul or otherwise- is (more) smoke and mirrors.  It's another judge's robe; another officer's badge & uniform.  Especially the present ('voluntary') American versions.  Its more hiding of the gun in the room/gun under the table/gun on the table/gun pointed at "dissenters"-- you know, those that are against rape/slavery/armed robbery period, and not just how many times/how deep/how much.  Voting* Ron Paul is a cheap condom on the rapist.  Sure, that's 'better' technically, but to not 'go there', personally or via representation, is the true option.
I've never literally been raped or physically smacked once, much less repeatedly.  So I honestly can't say whether being "stroked" (wherever) a few less times, or fisted to the nose a certain less number of times-- each day of each week/each month/each year --is significant or not.  But I'm inclined to say after day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out, mere (?) reduction is really not "THE" solution preference/a viable, desirable option.  Voting* for many (eg 2 million +/- "inmates/convicts") is literally a day to day support, is it not?      [imo, it's also a temptation to feel one has done something, even "all I can", too easily accepting, thus allowing a perpetuity of, the every 4 year cycle etc; all the meanwhile, the raping/pillaging/beating continues... hour to hour...]

All that said, I certainly don't wish to convey that I don't grapple with said temptation...
May none of us mis(s)-anal-yze the issue either.


* I include the word "vote" in quotes because it carries a legal definition (in+doctri+Nation); as I've posited before, one's vote is whatever or wherever one invests one's time in; where one's largest ballot today is 'money' forms (eg "dollars"/"pounds"/"marks" etc); investing one's time in political paper balloting is but a distraction to the truest sense of voting

[thirdeye]

I think it's funny how much Hollywood has affected peoples thinking like all the Ron Paul videos out there with Jurassic Park like musical overtures lol. It is good to see just how much iceing is on the cake of collectivism. Sticking with this analogy or metaphor, we need to let the yeast rise in a completely different recipe. The "cake" we are offered these days is just another desensitizing and glorified feast that is WAY too sweet, has all kinds of bells and whistles on it, and an iceing message on top that says " this is the BEST and ONLY cake". The cake (system) is too arrogantly loud , patronizing, and has enough aspartame to cause serious brain damage and that alone should raise a red flag in the consciousness of people, which by the way it is. There is a reason they want you to believe in their system, and hollywood is doing a damn fine job of affecting consciousness. I think it all started with the ridiculously overt manly cowboy image which eventually turned into the dirty harrys and james bonds. Over sexed champions of the system who are "just" and "righteous". All the war movies and video games are indoctrinating enough ( I played 5 hours of halo 3 online last night  ) and even the Army sponsors video games and has kids play them at their expositions at schools! "Hey see how fun and cool this game is. Ya, that is what it's like to be in the Army". They are trying sooo hard to get pople to believe in the system, and not only that but to accept it as normal and nessesary by making it all neat, cool and hip. Trully disgusting. Remember that Marines commerical with the guy fighting the dragon in a volcano while crossing that shape shifting bridge of spikes and metal? WAKE UP TO THE BRAINWASHING PEOPLE!

The message they send is clear. "collectivism good, individuals bad". It is a constant mantra in everything they manufacture.  

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear Wrote:It's more hiding of the gun in the room/gun under the table/gun on the table/gun pointed at "dissenters"...

orange emphasis added     (Heidi made me do it.  Honest!)

Excellent point!  I hadn't seen it that clearly from that angle.

As to your "voters*,"  that's why I specified "political voting."

Good thoughts, Darren (Oooooops!) 2i2.  Maybe I'll hold off for a while on the smiting. (Scratch that last statement in this case.)

- NonE

[Plume]

these are sincere responses? as if to say Ron Paul will compromise Lysander Spooner? He was the one who uttered the name. Why? .........we've all had to give a little to get a little, anticipating getting into position to exercize more of our individual idea because independently we are creative when the clay is sat at our placing. that would be an interesting interview.... what Ron Paul really understands of Spooner and is he influenced and by how much. I'm not really ready to cast off anybody who holds Spooner in their heart. and Ron Paul has obviously been impressed upon.


chess not checkers

[Darren Dirt]

HighDesert Wrote:How many here think that it'd be ethical to support Ron Paul knowing that he still supports 'statist' philosophy?

Does being cognizant of a certain ethical view curtail you from participating in a system of control that is slanted against you?

Especially when there's a unique opportunity to bring together a very diverse range of individuals representing the free thinkers of the world?


I don't want to come across as someone who is simply spamming this board with Ron Paul propaganda.

ROFL don't worry, I think I've ended up taking that job

I think Stefan Molyneux's "lynching" analogy says it best, and most of us on the AiLL forum certainly agree with the viewpoint that ANY kind of "elected government" is both a mythological hoax-scam, and an immoral cover story for coercive violence. But also Ron Paul has gotten tons of Mainstream Media coverage raising questions about the Federal Reserve, the ridiculous War On Drug Users, etc. so there's definitely good that has come out of his "running" (which is why I continue to ... propagate pro-Paul propaganda )

BTW I apologize to anyone if I have given an impression that if I were an Uhmerican, that I would cast ANY kind of vote (political, I mean, not financial ) -- I just enjoy seeing how the MSM tries to downplay Paul's success by saying his views are "fringe" when they are actually con-stitutionally based... and have seemed to touch a nerve with a lot of fence-sitting "sick of the left, sick of the right" type of still-voting-cuz-they-don't-know-any-better half-awakened sheeple.


- - -

PS:

HighDesert Wrote:Before you make your decision watch a video that was put together from the Oregon Republican Party Straw Poll:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCVo1HT10k4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCVo1HT10k4</a><!-- m -->

WOW, I skimmed past the first 3 minutes of the video (kinda boring sign-waving etc.) but then was happily surprised to see a dialogue outside that was quite revealing and Marcstevens-esque:

Quote:...when people say isolationism, it's being presented as though, if you don't have your military all over the world then you're an isolationist.

But you can do a lot of business with people without putting the barrel of a gun in their face ... most sane business men out in the world right now do business without a barrel, without forcing people to do business with them.

Does this half-awakened dude realize that what he is saying about nations and the moral concept of "isolationism" could -- and should -- be applied to interactions among individuals? :o 8)

[eye2i2hear]

Darren Dirt Wrote:
I think Stefan Molyneux's "lynching" analogy says it best...

I agree; so much so, that I'll risk the scorn and post it here in its NonEntirety:  8)

Quote:

Ah, my son, my son…

He’s 40 years old, and really needs to change careers.  [once upon a time other, he was actually a doctor!]

When he was 20, he joined the Ku Klux Klan, because he was concerned that the Klan was getting too big, too aggressive. In those days, they were lynching some poor man every week, which he felt was wrong. He felt that the Klan should limit itself to a lynching every month, and that things were getting waaaay out of hand.

I’ve spent my life arguing that the Klan should be abolished, so I had mixed feelings about his decision. Without a doubt, I would rather the Klan lynch someone once a month rather than once a week, so I was somewhat tempted by his ‘work from the inside’ approach, but I had some significant doubts that it could work.

“But dad,” he said, those many years ago, “I can get the word out that the Klan should only be lynching someone once a month, rather than once a week, which will be a step in the right direction, right?”

“Well, I’m not sure,” I said uneasily. “Won’t people be getting the message that lynching is good, rather than that lynching is bad? You’re legitimizing the principle.”

“But I want to reduce the number of lynchings, dad!” he replied. “In an ideal world, sure, there should be no lynchings at all, but I’m going to bring that number down, which is a step in the right direction, right? I mean, it’s better if fewer people get lynched, right?”

I was uneasy, because something just sort of – seemed wrong with his approach, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.

For the past twenty years, my son has been notorious in the Klan. He draws a paycheck, goes to meetings – and has been given control over his very own district of Klan loyalists.

To his credit, whenever the Klan Council votes on whether to have a lynching, my son usually votes ‘no.’ Often he’s the only one casting a negative vote.

Still, since he joined the Klan with the goal of reducing lynching, lynching has gone up and up and up.

Now, the Klan that 20 years ago only lynched a man a week is now lynching a man a day.

And my son’s district? Has he been able to reduce the lynching in the area he has control over?

No. In fact, the lynching in his own district has actually gone up over the years.

When I ask him about this, his answer is always the same: “Sure, dad, but I don’t have that much control over who gets lynched in my district. I oppose it, of course, but there’s not a whole lot I can do.”

A few months ago, my son came over and told me he was running for Grand Wizard.

“If I become Grand Wizard,” he said, “I will be able to veto most of the lynchings that come up for a vote. Then I’ll really have the power to reduce the number of people getting killed or beaten up.”

“But son!” I exclaimed in horror. “People – other than you, let’s say – only join the Klan so they can lynch people. If all they want to do is lynch people, why on earth would they vote you in? And if you somehow got in, the moment you stopped them from lynching, they’d just toss you out! If you stop the Klan from lynching, it’s not the Klan anymore!”

“No,” he said earnestly, “it’s still the Klan – it’s just a smaller Klan that lynches less!”

“Twenty years ago,” I said softly, “you said that in a perfect world, there would be no lynching at all…”

“Sure,” he said, coloring slightly. “But I can’t talk about that. About there being no lynching at all. I mean, that would be mad – I’d never get elected Grand Wizard!”

“Right, so you’re on a ‘pro-lynching’ platform, you just want less lynching.”

“Yes,” he said, nodding vigorously, immune to irony.

“So it’s wrong to lynch a lot, but it’s right to lynch a little.”

“Well, ideally, there should be no lynching at all…”

“But that’s not what you’re telling people. You’re telling people that the right thing to do is lynch less.”

“Sure – because less lynching is better than more lynching.”

“But no lynching is better, right?”

“Yes, in an ideal world…”

“So why don’t you tell people that? That you want to take over the Klan in order to abolish it!”

He laughed. “Oh, I don’t think that’s the right idea. Right now, we need the lynchings. We need the Klan. It’s just gotten too big.”

Round and round we went, from pragmatism to principle, back and forth… It was most exasperating!

After a public debate where my son roused a real ruckus by openly stating that the reason that certain minorities hated whites was because of white support for the Klan that lynched them, his numbers shot up from somewhere near 0% to around 3%.

He came right over, ecstatic. “I’m really getting the message out, dad!”

I grimaced. “Well – I hate to say this, son, but I think you just shot yourself in the foot.”

“Wh – what?” His voice hardened instantly.

“You say that minorities hate the Klan because of the lynchings, right?”

“Right!”

“But the number of lynchings has gone up like five or six times since you joined the Klan – and the number of lynchings in your district has also gone up!”

“But I vote against most of the lynchings!”

“But son! You are in the Klan! You support lynchings! How can you say that the Klan is immoral?”

“Because, as I’ve said about ten thousand times over the past twenty years, dad, there’s too much lynching!”

“So you think that minorities will love you now? When you say they have every right to hate the lynching that you support less of? My God son – when did it happen that the best possible outcome a good man could hope for was to present himself as the lesser of two evils?”

“Because change has to be gradual, dad!” he cried out. “Has your podcasting and scribbling stopped even one lynching? At least I’m out in the real world trying to get something done!”

“And what, after twenty years, have you achieved? You said to me, long ago, ‘Dad, I’m in this to reduce the numbers of lynchings. And you’ve been taking Klan money and hanging out with these thugs for decades, and what is the outcome? More lynchings. More Klan power! So what have you achieved?”

He jumped up. “Well, yeah, sure, there are more lynchings now, but can you imagine what would have happened if I hadn’t joined the Klan? Instead of just one lynching a day, there could be two or three!”

“How do you know that? That’s just something you tell yourself, so you don’t feel that you compromised your principles for nothing. There’s no evidence of that!”

“I’ve voted against most of the lynchings!”

“And the lynchings happened anyway! And still you stay with these thugs!”

Suddenly he changed tactics. “Why do you care so much what I do? We’re both for less lynching, we’re both on the same side of the fence, we shouldn’t be fighting each other.”

“But you are fighting me,” I said softly. “Don’t you understand that?”

There was a long silence. Our mutual anger was spent.

“What do you mean?”

“Son, you think that lynching should be reformed, I think it should be abolished. It’s like slavery.” I sighed. “In the 19th century, a lot people were very uneasy about slavery. Deep down, they knew that it was wrong. But they also were afraid of real change. And there were two groups: the reformers and the abolitionists. The reformers promised people that slavery could be made more humane, that the slaves could be treated better, beaten and raped less – and so slavery did not have to be eliminated. They worked to pass laws against the extreme mistreatment of slaves, held rallies, raised money – an enormous amount of time, energy and resources were wasted trying to reform slavery. And, as they worked and worked, for decades and decades, more slaves got beaten and raped, conditions got worse and worse, and – the worst thing in my view – people uncomfortable with slavery were given the comforting illusion that it did not have to be abolished.

“The abolitionists, on the other hand, knew that slavery could not be reformed, that is was evil through and through, and that it had to be abolished. And their most dangerous opponents were not those who were unabashedly pro-slavery. Their most dangerous opponents were the reformers.”

He rolled his eyes. “So – you’re saying that I’m your enemy now?”

“No, because we’ve never had this conversation. And for that I’m sorry. But what you’re doing, what you’ve been doing for twenty years, is telling people that the Klan can be good if only the right person is in charge. You’re giving people false hope, because the Klan can never be good. And so they shrink back from abolishing the Klan, because that seems extreme, because here’s this smart, well-spoken person who’s been in the Klan for twenty years, who’s saying that the Klan is good and necessary, and all we have to do is put him in charge of it. So when I come along and say that the Klan is immoral, and needs to be abolished, you know what people say to me? They say, ‘Nahhh, I’m going to support your son, he has great plans to reform the Klan, I agree with a lot of what he says, there is too much lynching – we don’t have to abolish the Klan, that’s too extreme.’ And that’s been going on for the last twenty years, son. You’re giving people a false choice that helps them avoid the necessity of change, from confronting the evil in their midst. And you legitimize the Klan by claiming to be a good man and being part of it. I’m telling you this from the bottom of my heart, son: if you did not exist, the Klan would have to invent you.”

There was a long pause.

“All right, dad,” said my son eventually, raising his eyes to mine. “I’ll drop my run for Grand Wizard. On one condition.”

“Anything!” I cried out, overjoyed.

“You drop your support for Ron Paul.”

Posted by Stefan Molyneux