Freedomain Radio

Right, I've heard that argument - so the solution is always government violence in some areas, or sometimes government violence in all areas?

Stefan Molyneux:

Right, I've heard that argument - so the solution is always government violence in some areas, or sometimes government violence in all areas?

no but it's better than the only message being sent to the masses in a steady drumbeat being "how can we get the government to solve problem X." so I consider someone who introduces and reinforces the idea that the government doesn't need to nor should it do most things. I agree in principle that politicians can't make a difference, it's more or less just giving someone like that a microphone to speak into.

Those who argue that evil can be reformed only prolong it.

You know, I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think I'm beginning to be able to come to grips with my support of Ron Paul.  I honestly don't care what the man wants to do for the most part because he can't do most of it with the congress full of statists.  I want two things to come out of the Ron Paul presidency:

1.  He brings all of the military back to the states, which is in his power as commander in chief.  The world would be a little more open to freedom if the world police weren't stationed everywhere.

2.  I hope that he would create a kind of "fireside chat" type of thing where he explains the minarchist point of view in simple terms to the majority of Americans.  Even if he can't get any of it done, just planting the seed in the majority of Americans' heads will be a huge step towards an Ancap society.

I'm not sure why you guys think he's going to be a huge threat to libertarianism.  He's not going to actually be able to do any of the things he wants to do.  If he can't do anything, then people are not going to say "libertarianism doesn't work.".... well idiots will, but the idiots say that right now, so what's the difference.  Thinking people will see that Paul was not allowed to do anything he wanted to, so it will be a "lame duck" presidency.  That's fine, as long as the ideas get spread.

Fact is, after 4 years, another war-monger will probably get elected, the state will go back to its infinite expanse, but this time, when it collapses, maybe people will be able to say, "before we make another parasitic government... let's ask ourselves, do we really need it?"

So I support Ron Paul mainly because a lot of Americans listen to the president, even if they don't like him, and he may get 4 years in the biggest spotlight in America to spread at least minarchism.  And once people are OK with minarchism, market anarchism is just a hop, skip, and a jump away.     
 

That's just it. He's not a huge threat to Libertarianism. He's a huge threat to freedom.

The minute I start thinking there's anything some strange old country doctor from Texas can do to improve my chance at attaining happiness (especially from a plush office in Washington), is the minute I give up the responsibility to achieve it for myself, in favor of a fantasy of personal happiness. The minute I do that, I have doomed myself to a state of enslavement, and thusly, unhappiness. 

 I've come to tell you, there is nobody coming.

 Free yourself.

 

nexalacer:

1.  He brings all of the military back to the states, which is in his power as commander in chief.  The world would be a little more open to freedom if the world police weren't stationed everywhere.

2.  I hope that he would create a kind of "fireside chat" type of thing where he explains the minarchist point of view in simple terms to the majority of Americans.  Even if he can't get any of it done, just planting the seed in the majority of Americans' heads will be a huge step towards an Ancap society.

1. If you were part of the special-interest groups making billions of dollars from the hundreds of military bases overseas -- not to mention the murder of tens of thousands of people in the Iraq occupation -- what do you think you would do if someone threatened to cut off your "profits"?
   
   
2. This is exactly the problem with Ron Paul. You want someone to come along and explain freedom to the majority of Americans? Why don't you just go and do it?

Waiting for salvation is just another form of slavery.

1.  Likely, he'll be assassinated.  But, martyrs do well for spreading the message they are talking about.  And if he even closes a few of the bases... brings home a few hundred or thousand soldiers, it would be better for the world, at least for a while.  But yeah, I do concede that this more than likely won't be that successful.

2.  I'm doing my best to explain freedom to as many people as I can.  But the fact is, the president has the largest audience in the country.  It's just a simple numbers game.  Do I think everyone is going to change because of him?  No, but if the seed can be planted, then it will make my job easier when I get my thoughts & thinking lined up enough to spread the message on a larger scale. 

I'm not waiting for salvation from anyone, and I don't expect Ron Paul to change the world.  But I do think he has an opportunity to spread the message of freedom to more people than any other person in generations of American history.  I mean, I look at myself... I had all the pieces in my intellectual history needed to come to see the moral perfection of market anarchy, but I didn't tie them all together until I got a bit of Ron Paul's message.  I think there are many more people like me, and many more people that could become like me in the younger generations, and just hearing a bit of someone speaking on national television about true freedom (well, as much as mincarchism can bring!) can do a lot of good.

Greg Gauthier:

That's just it. He's not a huge threat to Libertarianism. He's a huge threat to freedom.

The minute I start thinking there's anything some strange old country doctor from Texas can do to improve my chance at attaining happiness (especially from a plush office in Washington), is the minute I give up the responsibility to achieve it for myself, in favor of a fantasy of personal happiness. The minute I do that, I have doomed myself to a state of enslavement, and thusly, unhappiness. 

 I've come to tell you, there is nobody coming.

 Free yourself.

 

Heh, I'm making may own way in happiness in Japan.  I'm not waiting for Ron Paul to bring it.  But if he can help guide more people to the happiness that comes with personal freedom, I wish him the best.  I found Stef because of Ron Paul, and I'm doing my best to get other supporters to do the same.  Not to say that Stef gave me happiness, it's just logical thinkers can be so hard to come by, without training it's difficult to find the path on your own.  And that's what I guess it's about... the path to logical thinking and freedom.  And for the most part, besides a few minarchist logical failings, Ron Paul is a pretty logical dude that talks a lot about freedom.  Is that such a bad thing for people who have been raised in state-run schools that have not taught them how to think or what true freedom is?

Ron Paul does not know what true freedom is. How can he talk about it?

nexalacer:

Heh, I'm making may own way in happiness in Japan.  I'm not waiting for Ron Paul to bring it.  But if he can help guide more people to the happiness that comes with personal freedom, I wish him the best.  I found Stef because of Ron Paul, and I'm doing my best to get other supporters to do the same.  Not to say that Stef gave me happiness, it's just logical thinkers can be so hard to come by, without training it's difficult to find the path on your own.  And that's what I guess it's about... the path to logical thinking and freedom.  And for the most part, besides a few minarchist logical failings, Ron Paul is a pretty logical dude that talks a lot about freedom.  Is that such a bad thing for people who have been raised in state-run schools that have not taught them how to think or what true freedom is?

People who believe in the Cartesian demon can be logical people, too.  They have absolutely no conscious idea how to gain freedom or happiness (or to determine very basic facts of reality).  At the least, they usually don't fraudulently claim to help people to freedom while they lead people astray.

Ron Paul will talk about nicer, more efficient, less onerous slavemasters that adhere strictly to the Good Slavemasters' Code, which is what his supporters want. He'll spread that idea and then, when it very quickly fails again, the people who listen to him for the reasons you want them to (he's logical and he talks about freedom) will think freedom failed because the Orwellian Libertarian propaganda is that slavery with better engineering is freedom.

Ron Paul will never be able to help them to see past the Libertarian poison pill, because he thinks it's medicine.  He will never be able to help people to gain personal freedom, because he loudly prescribes poison with a reasonable-sounding voice.

Logic without empiricism is dead.

Greg Gauthier:

Ron Paul does not know what true freedom is. How can he talk about it?

Ah, but my requirement is not that he speaks of true freedom, but that he speaks of freedom in a more libertarian sense, which he will and he is perfectly capable of speaking about.

 People are easier to convert to truth the closer they are to it without conversion.  And since now people are so far from truth, with ideas like socialism and statism considered the good and the true in society, they will require a larger conversion to real truth currently than they would from the half-truths of statist libertarianism, aka minarchism.

I really want to be clear, I don't see Ron Paul as a solution or end goal for anything.  I just think he has an opportunity to use a widely heard position to motivate people towards a position that is closer to our own beliefs than any other politician in my lifetime, and likely since the death of classical liberalism in politics (Lincoln?).  He is just another guidepost on the road to truth, and he points the way a lot more than any of the other chumps.  We have to join the people on the road to truth have Ron Paul sets them in the right direction. 

Mr. C:

nexalacer:

Heh, I'm making may own way in happiness in Japan.  I'm not waiting for Ron Paul to bring it.  But if he can help guide more people to the happiness that comes with personal freedom, I wish him the best.  I found Stef because of Ron Paul, and I'm doing my best to get other supporters to do the same.  Not to say that Stef gave me happiness, it's just logical thinkers can be so hard to come by, without training it's difficult to find the path on your own.  And that's what I guess it's about... the path to logical thinking and freedom.  And for the most part, besides a few minarchist logical failings, Ron Paul is a pretty logical dude that talks a lot about freedom.  Is that such a bad thing for people who have been raised in state-run schools that have not taught them how to think or what true freedom is?

People who believe in the Cartesian demon can be logical people, too.  They have absolutely no conscious idea how to gain freedom or happiness (or to determine very basic facts of reality).  At the least, they usually don't fraudulently claim to help people to freedom while they lead people astray.

Ron Paul will talk about nicer, more efficient, less onerous slavemasters that adhere strictly to the Good Slavemasters' Code, which is what his supporters want. He'll spread that idea and then, when it very quickly fails again, the people who listen to him for the reasons you want them to (he's logical and he talks about freedom) will think freedom failed because the Orwellian Libertarian propaganda is that slavery with better engineering is freedom.

Ron Paul will never be able to help them to see past the Libertarian poison pill, because he thinks it's medicine.  He will never be able to help people to gain personal freedom, because he loudly prescribes poison with a reasonable-sounding voice.

Logic without empiricism is dead.

I see this as a very pessimistic point of view.  I mean, you're right, of course, that that is a possible outcome of his presidency.  But on the other side of that coin, we could make our own voices more loudly known and teach as many people as humanly possible about the reasons even minimal government will fail.  So Ron Paul attempts a more limited government and we continue using the argument from morality to show people how it won't cut it.  Then, as Stef said in one of the podcasts I listened to recently (in the 60s or 70s), the people who are going to be looked up to after a failure or a collapse will be the ones who predicted it most accurately.

Again, I'm not relying on Ron Paul to SOLVE the problem, I'm just hoping he spreads the message to more people so that I, MYSELF, can teach more people with less butting my head against walls that another can just as easily break down for me.  Ron Paul's wall will be the requirement for government to take care of us from cradle to grave.  If he can successfully break that, then it's much easier to say, "why do we need government at all?," as well as break down the walls of familial and religious oppression.
 

Again, I'm not relying on Ron Paul to SOLVE the problem, I'm just hoping he spreads the message to more people so that I, MYSELF, can teach more people with less butting my head against walls that another can just as easily break down for me.  Ron Paul's wall will be the requirement for government to take care of us from cradle to grave.  If he can successfully break that, then it's much easier to say, "why do we need government at all?," as well as break down the walls of familial and religious oppression.

What is the core difference between Ron Paul and any other Presidential candidate? Answer: no difference.

So, what should one do if one's core belief is in direct opposition to The State, Ron Paul being (to you, anyway) the most seductive candidate for leading that State? Answer: Don't vote.

Whether you're arguing for a State the size of Oceana or the size of the one which existed on July 5th, 1776, you're still arguing for something which is morally repulsive to me. In a way, Ron Paul is the most vile man you can discuss here, because you obfuscate the true meaning of personal freedom when you try to seduce us with his dog & pony show.

"Subjugate yourself JUST THIS ONE MORE TIME, I swear to you it's going to be different baby, this time I mean, it, I'll never ever hurt you again, I'm going to change, you just watch me this time and see,  I'm a changed man, I will NEVER hit you again"

This is what I read when I see smarmy platitudes about how Ron Pul is 'different'. He's not different. Even if Ron Paul wins the presidency and he shrinks the government by half (a ludicrously optimistic amount, but let's say half, 50%), he is still the leader of a corrupt, poisonous system of thinking. Men with guns still come and kill me if I disagree with Ron Paul. 

Men with guns still come and kill me if I disagree with Ron Paul.

And I DO disagree with Ron Paul. So you'll forgive me if I don't pull the electrified dog collar on myself, you'll forgive me if I don't string up the razor wire myself, you'll forgive me if I don't press the loaded gun into the hands of men who would then without the slightest compunction put that gun to my forehead or my child's forehead and pull the trigger because I somehow 'threaten freedom' when I disagree. In fact, they're not the ones putting the gun to my child's forehead. I am. By voting, I am gently guiding the muzzle of the Glock right up to my son's frontal lobe, whereupon I look lovingly upon him and say, "This is peace. This is Freedom. Trust me. I love you."

You're vile. Did you know that? 

 

ok, time to apologize. sorry, I woke up especially sensitive to tyranny this morning I guess.

You're not vile, the position you're advocating is vile. 

bockman:

What is the core difference between Ron Paul and any other Presidential candidate? Answer: no difference.

If you're going to make a statement this strong, you must use some evidence to prove your point.  I've listened to the man speak many times, and I don't agree with him in most things, because he is an advocate for the state solving some things that I absolutely don't agree with, but the man is honest.  How do I know he's honest?  For one, I'm usually a fairly good judge of character and this guy tells the truth to the extent that he knows it, which is different from every other politician I've seen.  That is the difference that makes him seem likely a likely guide post for the common American towards his minarchist point of view.  That's all I ask from him.

So, what should one do if one's core belief is in direct opposition to The State, Ron Paul being (to you, anyway) the most seductive candidate for leading that State? Answer: Don't vote.

I still haven't heard a convincing proof that not voting does anything to oppose the state.  Prove it. 

Whether you're arguing for a State the size of Oceana or the size of the one which existed on July 5th, 1776, you're still arguing for something which is morally repulsive to me. In a way, Ron Paul is the most vile man you can discuss here, because you obfuscate the true meaning of personal freedom when you try to seduce us with his dog & pony show.

"Subjugate yourself JUST THIS ONE MORE TIME, I swear to you it's going to be different baby, this time I mean, it, I'll never ever hurt you again, I'm going to change, you just watch me this time and see,  I'm a changed man, I will NEVER hit you again"

This is what I read when I see smarmy platitudes about how Ron Pul is 'different'. He's not different. Even if Ron Paul wins the presidency and he shrinks the government by half (a ludicrously optimistic amount, but let's say half, 50%), he is still the leader of a corrupt, poisonous system of thinking. Men with guns still come and kill me if I disagree with Ron Paul. 

Men with guns still come and kill me if I disagree with Ron Paul.

And I DO disagree with Ron Paul. So you'll forgive me if I don't pull the electrified dog collar on myself, you'll forgive me if I don't string up the razor wire myself, you'll forgive me if I don't press the loaded gun into the hands of men who would then without the slightest compunction put that gun to my forehead or my child's forehead and pull the trigger because I somehow 'threaten freedom' when I disagree. In fact, they're not the ones putting the gun to my child's forehead. I am. By voting, I am gently guiding the muzzle of the Glock right up to my son's frontal lobe, whereupon I look lovingly upon him and say, "This is peace. This is Freedom. Trust me. I love you."

If you don't vote, someone is going to be elected and subjugate you anyway, so why does it matter if I choose to vote for Ron Paul because I think he can have a productive presidency.  Not productive as far as doing anything to actually decrease the power of the state, because you're right, whether the state is constitutional in size or a behemoth, it's still an oppressive organization.  But as I've said OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, my biggest motivation is that Ron Paul can POSSIBLY reach a much larger audience with his minarchist point of views than I or Stef will for many more years... and this is a VERY positive step towards people breaking the shackles of state oppression altogether, in my opinion.  Notice that's my subjective opinion... based on my own experience, if people can be moved towards libertarianism and/or minarchism, they are more likely to read Mises, Rothbard, and other AnCappers over at LewRockwell.  They are more likely to come to freedomain radio with an open mind.  They are more likely to embrace market anarchy than they would listening to four to eight years of Clinton's socialist garbage.  If you don't wanna vote, fine.  Don't.  It's the beauty of being free, correct?  I can't make you do what I am doing.  However, since this thread is called "what's so great about Ron Paul?", I figured I'd put in my two cents.  And if you equate voting with putting the glock up to your son's head, I think you're being melodramatic.  Again that's my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

*deleted by author*