Freedomain Radio

Stefan you state that passing on your message of freedom is what you will do to end the slavery of the state.  I believe that Ron Paul also does the same.  He is honest and states his views of Libertarian thought applied to the machinery of the Fed on a constant and consistent basis. 

Your question regarding his cutting of the government spending within his district is not the correct question.  The correct question is to ask, "Has Ron Paul brought more pork programs to his district?"  The answer is no.  Another related question might be, "Does Ron Paul seek to limit or reduce the role and power of the Fed through his voting record?"  The answer is yes.

Another way to look at the importance of a man like Ron Paul in congress or as a sitting President is to consider what the government would look like if his worldview was dominant rather than the socialist status quo leading the US into financial ruin.

I see him as an individual that can spread the word of freedom and liberty as well as limited government better than most by virtue of the fact that he is a congresscritter.

Cheers,

Cory 

I know that to be a member of the Libertarian Party, one must sign a statement declaring one's allegiance to the non-aggression principle...  Does anyone know what kind of ritualistic soul-selling one must do to become an avowed member of the Republican Party?  Does one have to sacrifice a  southern-state baby on the altar of Lincoln or something?  I've always thought it disingenuous (at best) to downright sneeringly hypocritical that Paul declares himself a Republican, while claiming to be libertarian in his philosophy.

(BTW, isn't the term "libertarian political party" such a delicious oxymoron?)

See the previous arguments in the post that went widely off topic found below.  This will give you additional background on what has already been said, at least by me and various responses that I got back:  

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/thread/58806.aspx

BTW, I distinctly remember Ron being chastised by a constituent because he doesn't bring pork to his district.  Because of his voting record, the House Leadership routinely cut him out of all those special deals they needed to get MUST PASS! legislation through.  Ron told the guy, if it's not a constitutional authorized function of the FEDGOV, he wouldn't vote for it.  

As long as I'm at it, a slight correction to Sunday's Discussion.  Steff was under the impression that when I said, "They keep changing his district," that it meant redrawing it's boundries (changing the size).  I wasn't as clear as I should have been here. What I meant was they changed his district from (example only here I don't know the actual numbers) say Texas 2 to Texas 17.  

The last election they put him in a democratic district and they tried to portray his democrat opponet as a strong supporter of the 2nd ammendment while Ron Paul was for certain gun 
control laws (a big  fat lie) and he still won with around 2/3s of the vote.  In other words the Republican Party in Washington, in cahoots with the Republican Senate in Tx tried to get this Republican defeated because they wanted him to lose his congressional seat.  That makes me like him even more. (sorry Steff, but 
any candidate who would roll back the police state is someone I gotta support) 

Rodzilla:

I've always thought it disingenuous (at best) to downright sneeringly hypocritical that Paul declares himself a Republican, while claiming to be libertarian in his philosophy.

 

Paul has often said that he didn't think he could even get elected to his house seat without being a member of one of the (supposedly) two parties.  This may not be perfect, but you gotta play by the rules if you want to be in the game.  In this case, his judgement was that without a republican affiliation he'd be unelectable. The one guy who comes closest to expousing the ideas on this board is the one you are most critical of.  Sometimes you just can't win.

corporateschill:

Ron Paul also does the same.  He is honest and states his views of Libertarian thought applied to the machinery of the Fed on a constant and consistent basis.

Ron paul isn't honest.  He doesn't acknowledge that taxation is theft.  So his political science is unsound.

Joe:

... you gotta play by the rules if you want to be in the game.

That's exactly what makes politics the absolute worst tool to use in dismantling the state!  You're making my argument for me here.

Joe:

The one guy who comes closest to expousing the ideas on this board is the one you are most critical of.  Sometimes you just can't win.

Is the guy who comforts the lamb right before the slaughter the lamb's ally?

I do like listening to Ron Paul speak... and knowing that there's going to be a president, I can't help but hope he does well this campaign season... yet, every time I hear him talk, I think about what Stef said that he's really saying: Give Me The Gun!  He's a nice enough guy, but doesn't seem to realize that taxation is wrong any way you slice it.  I did like how he said he'd abolish the IRS... but unless he is talking about stopping ALL government programs, it's a relatively empty gesture.

I gave up voting in '06... we'll see if I can hold on to my principles and sit this one out too...   

"ritualistic soul selling"  that is hillarious. 

I think all I did was check the 'Libertarian' box when I registered to vote. 
 

hippy:

corporateschill:

Ron Paul also does the same.  He is honest and states his views of Libertarian thought applied to the machinery of the Fed on a constant and consistent basis.

Ron paul isn't honest.  He doesn't acknowledge that taxation is theft.  So his political science is unsound.

I believe he does.  He states clearly that the IRS should be abolished.

This is a direct quote from him, "The only tax reform needed is to lower or abolish existing taxes." or "Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all."

The article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul316.html

You gotta' start somewhere.   

 

I also gave up voting in 2006.  Three factors forever ruined voting for me:

• For a decade I've considered democracy immoral. 
• Stefan rightly noted that voting endorses govt.
• Govt hasn't correctly counted the votes since at least as far back as 2000.
• In 2006 my state's supreme court declined to intervene before distribution when the legislature prepared the official voting guide with a known falsehood.

Is the guy who comforts the lamb right before the slaughter the lamb's ally?

This is the guy who tells the lamb to look at the hole in the fence.....  Whether the lamb sticks around for the slaughter is up to the lamb

hippy:

I also gave up voting in 2006.  Three factors forever ruined voting for me:

• For a decade I've considered democracy immoral. 
• Stefan rightly noted that voting endorses govt.
• Govt hasn't correctly counted the votes since at least as far back as 2000.
• In 2006 my state's supreme court declined to intervene before distribution when the legislature prepared the official voting guide with a known falsehood.

How has the gov't noncorrectly counted votes?   I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm curious what you mean (whether it is the electoral college or the new voting machines, etc...)

Surely pure democracy is immoral as it simply is the rape of the minority by the majority...  Two wolves and a sheep arguing over the dinner menu if you will.

With regard to voting endorsing government I think there is something more insidious than that.  I believe that the candidate choices are very much controlled by the apparatus of the state along with the help of compliant media and business interests that feed off the largesse of the state.  A lefty named Chomsky called it 'Manufacturing Consent' I believe.
 

 

corporateschill:

How has the gov't noncorrectly counted votes?   I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm curious what you mean (whether it is the electoral college or the new voting machines, etc...)

Black box voting means that the machines source code is a trade secret.  Multiple ohio officials went to prison for their fraud in ohio's 2004 recount.  Other states have had credible allegations of all manner of fraud, from turnout suppression, to registry scrubbing, to tally flipping, to recount sample cherrypicking, even explicit disposal of cast ballots without counting. 

Exit polls no longer match official outcomes.  In my state last year, the voter registry was "accidentally" not distributed to inner city precincts and all folks were asked to wait hours for the list to arrive.  Precincts have been undersupplied machines to create hours of lines.  In most states an employee can be fired for voting during business hours.  Chuck hagel was mysteriously elected to congress against all predictions after his firm sold voting machines to nebraska.

All of this is more or less documented on the web for anyone interested.  There's no political possibility that many of these problems can ever be mitigated.

I get a pretty strong amount of shock when I tell people that I've freed myself from the voting apparatus, but the feeling of knowing that I'm not providing additional ammunition to the notion of the virtue of democracy is worth it.  If anyone decides to give up voting, be prepared for an onslaught of "then you don't get to complain!!" style of childish comebacks.  It's really hilarious, people just jump right to that.  Even if you are the strongest activist in your social group, you will immediately be labeled as lazy and "part of the problem".

Does anyone else find it hilarious when people say that getting a "higher voter turnout" will solve more problems?  I once knew a girl who said that people not voting was the biggest problem facing "our democracy"... but I stumped her when I asked her if she would rather people go and vote knowing full well they'd vote for Bush (whom she despised).  Even if I believed in "democracy", I would never encourage someone to go vote if they were going to vote for my political enemy!  It's rampant, pure insanity!  Why is something that more people "voted for" better?  Isn't there a fundamental logical fallacy with that kind of thinking?

It will be interesting to witness the "2008 U.S. Election" from the sidelines :)  I plan on digging a hole to live in for the week or two leading up to the big day.

Rodzilla:

I know that to be a member of the Libertarian Party, one must sign a statement declaring one's allegiance to the non-aggression principle...  Does anyone know what kind of ritualistic soul-selling one must do to become an avowed member of the Republican Party?  Does one have to sacrifice a  southern-state baby on the altar of Lincoln or something?  I've always thought it disingenuous (at best) to downright sneeringly hypocritical that Paul declares himself a Republican, while claiming to be libertarian in his philosophy.

(BTW, isn't the term "libertarian political party" such a delicious oxymoron?)

To be a member of the Republican party and probably the so called Democratic you simply have to make a small donation to the party of $20 or $25 or so. I don't see Paul as hypocritical. He is who he says he is. As Bill Shakespeare wrote, " a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Prior to 1971 there wasn't a Libertarian Party but there were libertarian Republicans. There is even today a Republican Liberty Caucus.

                           $

http://ronpaulrevolution.com