Freedomain Radio

H. Rearden:

Are you knowledgeabkle about Jefferson?

Knowledgeable enough. 

What did Jefferson do that ws disrespectful towards women?

He surely didn't respect them enough to include them in his glorious vision of the state.  Oh, and the slave-rape, too, even though that's been debated... though probably by the same people that keep praising him for all the wonderful things that he did.  Like... buying Louisiana?  I haven't found that part of the constitution yet.

Do you use the interstate highway system? Do you pay taxes?

HAHA!  Your argument rests on what I'm forced to do!  Brilliant!  I guess you're right... I occupy the same moral category as the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves, or the supposed freedom-loving Congressman who supports the state.  Bravo.  I'll just crawl into my freedom-hole and not do either.  At least I'll be rid of the godforsaken dollar-signs.

There's a reason these delusions that plague humanity are still around... 

Ronpaulfan:

I understand their point, but the whole system is going to collapse anyway. I'm not worried, since the whole thing is gone in 10 or 15 years

How do you know that?

                $

Charlie:

Ronpaulfan:

What is something he voted for that fundamentally betrays our ideals? Wouldn't you rather have Jefferson as president rather than Bush?

Sure... well, except for all the slavery.  And the disrespect towards women.  Oh, and the whole state part.

Ron Paul votes for the state.  He votes for coercion.  He votes for force.  My problem is that he should know better since he, like Jefferson, keeps talking about the evils of government.  Oh wait... it's "big government," right?  THAT'S the problem.

This is not true.  If he could dismantle the Fed to the original intent of the founders he would.....  All the 3 letter agencies would be abolished.  Income taxes gone.  The military would be only for the defense of the nation when directly attacked.  

If that's how you really think let me ask a few questions:

- Do you have a driver's license?

- Do you pay your taxes?

If you do either of these things are you not supporting the state also?  

Also regarding disrespect for women you are confusing Jefferson with today's well known rap artists.  :)

And slavery existed very well without states and still does in several Islamic countries.  It's true that aspects of the state and federal government prolonged slavery for longer than it would have existed under unfettered market conditions as it was already on the outs...

I would say Paul is taking action.  If his mindset was dominant the Fed's budget could be paid for by a paper route rather than 5 years of average income from every citizen.  

I'm sorry but his actions are notable.  If the anti-state movement is the extreme fringe and Paul is somewhere on just the fringe we will need Paul's views to be the norm before our views can be just the fringe and perhaps someday the norm.  Patience! 

Get rich quick, steriods, Porsches, sex, instant gratification and an end to the state tomorrow!!! ya baby, now ya!  I want it now!  Give it to me!!!  An 8 ball of coke and a killer job at the Cato Institute!  Ya baby ... Ya!!!

Don't be a Paul hater..... 

It's sleepy time......

Charlie:

 

Knowledgeable enough. 

He surely didn't respect them enough to include them in his glorious vision of the state.  Oh, and the slave-rape, too, even though that's been debated... though probably by the same people that keep praising him for all the wonderful things that he did.  Like... buying Louisiana?  I haven't found that part of the constitution yet.

HAHA!  Your argument rests on what I'm forced to do!  Brilliant!  I guess you're right... I occupy the same moral category as the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves, or the supposed freedom-loving Congressman who supports the state.  Bravo.  I'll just crawl into my freedom-hole and not do either.  At least I'll be rid of the godforsaken dollar-signs.

There's a reason these delusions that plague humanity are still around... 

First of all I don't know how knowledgeable you are about Jefferson. I assume that you probably are not as knowledgeable about Jefferson as Bill Barker is because Barker earns his livelyhood being knowledgeable about Jefferson. I don't know what you mean by Jefferson not including women in this glorious vision of the state you claim he had. What is that about? Slave-rape? What proof do you have iof that accusation? Congress voted to purchase the Louisiana Territory from France which comprised a far larger land mass than what became the state of Louisiana btw. Jefferson called Congress into session over the matter. He didn't solely make the decession. As for my argument resting on you claim you are forced to do, Jefferson was forced to be a slave owner but you condemn him for it. It is easy for you to do that because you were not around in Jefferson's era. Stop for a moment and consider what Jefferson's life was like. He inherited slaves and plantations. The law did not allow a slave owner to free mass numbers of slaves. To free one slave you had to get permission from the government. The reason is because for one thing people feared slave uprisings. Hundreds of slaves being freed would have been considered a public threat. Also men like Jefferson owed debts. Even if he could free his slaves he would go broke and end up in debtors prison. Also if one owes debts their property including slaves could be used to settle debts and be sold after their death or if they were in bancruptcy.  It is very possible that 200 years from now many people might see you the same way you see Jefferson today. Perhaps if market anarchy is acheived 200 years from now in large part it may have happened as a result of using the political process to promote and acheived smaller and smaller gov't and those who did not get involved in the political process when they could have at least voted for a libertarian did not will be seen as having little to no real effect when it came to acheiving liberty. You see people 200 years from now might question you the way you do Jefferson today.

                                $

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgjI_WROg6w

Ronpaulfan:

alextruberg:

I think the main point that M.A.'s are trying to make is that it's time for us to start reconizing and vocalizing that we'd rather have no president at all... and showing support for a political candidate is tacit support for the existance of the office itself.

I understand their point, but the whole system is going to collapse anyway. I'm not worried, since the whole thing is gone in 10 or 15 years...but 10 or 15 years is a good 1/5th or 1/6th of my expected lifespan, and I want those years to also be a little less bad. Ron Paul as president would veto a hell of a lot of stuff...shit like the patriot Act and war in iraq and afghanistan wouldn't have happened. 9/11 would never have happened as Ron Paul would have said no to their conspiracy theory as Kennedy did to Operation Northwoods.

When I vote for him in 08, I am voting to save myself thou$ands in taxes, thousands or millions in war casualties and "terrorism" related sham acts, and liberty-curtailing regulations such as the Patriot Act. Honestly, a couple hundred or thousands of dollars saved plus not seeing my friends die in war is enough reason for me to vote...I am not willing to sacrifice thousands of dollars of my own money to higher taxes to make some moral statement that no one else will see or appreciate. I helped sponsor 1 anti-Iraq rally on campus (time cost 5 hours x $8 an hour lost wages)=$40. For that, I got newspaper coverage and 120 people to demonstrate together...far more influence than not voting would have had. I am not willing to pay thousands of dollars to make a small and unnoticed moral stand.

You are making a statement either way. If you vote for Ron Paul (or Hillary) you are making a positive statement that the state apparatus is logical and moral. You are justifying it's continued existence for another generation. How much money and lives will that cost in the long run? When you vote in '08, you are saying nothing other than violence is good and that moral contradictions are acceptable. You lose the integrity to say "this thing... this government fantasy. It's all wrong."

What if Ron Paul wins and turns everything around? You still haven't eliminated statism in America; you've only encouraged it. Eventually, you'll have to turn over the keys of a turbocharged economy over to either domestic or foreign war mongers. In the best possible scenario, the libertarian party would be like an enabler within a family of alcoholics. Clean shaven and with your money in their pockets, the other parties will drink, gamble, rape, and murder with impunity until they hit rock bottom and ask you bail them out yet another time.

H. Rearden:

You see people 200 years from now might question you the way you do Jefferson today.

Unfortunately for you, me, and all of us, Jefferson didn't share your blinding foresight.

Freebie:

You are making a statement either way. If you vote for Ron Paul (or Hillary) you are making a positive statement that the state apparatus is logical and moral. You are justifying it's continued existence for another generation. How much money and lives will that cost in the long run? When you vote in '08, you are saying nothing other than violence is good and that moral contradictions are acceptable. You lose the integrity to say "this thing... this government fantasy. It's all wrong."

What if Ron Paul wins and turns everything around? You still haven't eliminated statism in America; you've only encouraged it. Eventually, you'll have to turn over the keys of a turbocharged economy over to either domestic or foreign war mongers. In the best possible scenario, the libertarian party would be like an enabler within a family of alcoholics. Clean shaven and with your money in their pockets, the other parties will drink, gamble, rape, and murder with impunity until they hit rock bottom and ask you bail them out yet another time.

When you use any gov't provided service the same is true. If you drive a government built highway you are making the statement that you are justifying the state collecting taxes to build the highway. If you receive mail via the USPO you are justifying the government providing mail service. The same is true if you hold any type of government license.

                        $

Excellent points Freebie. I'm not going to debate Ron Paul any more, since I've now asked several times for evidence that he has reduced the size of government in his home district, where he has power, and all I get in response is that Ron has not voted to increase taxes.

This is the great state-killer? This is the man who gives you hope for a political solution? Lord above...

I'm going to try to end slavery, and I'm not holding as my hero, my personal salvation, a man whose sole verifiable claim as an abolitionist is that he votes against enslaving more people - who get enslaved anyway.

These illusions are too entrenched for evidence to penetrate.

Charlie:

Unfortunately for you, me, and all of us, Jefferson didn't share your blinding foresight.

That is sort of the point I am making. You judge Jefferson based on today's standards. He wasn't a 21st century man. He had to deal with the world the way ir was in his era just like we have to deal with the world the way it is today. He was not able to end slavery. He had to tollerate it because he was forced to. The gov't forced him a gunpoint to be a slave owner because if he freed all of his slaves men with guns would come after him and throw him in jail.That is the point I have been making. Prior to the American Revolution the royal governor of VA was the king's agent in VA. Even Jefferson and his fellow statesmen could not ebd slavery at that time because VA was a colony of England and the purpose of colony is to benefit the mother country financially and that was done via slavery. It was a system that took some time for people to manage to free themselves of. We see how easy some things should be but things are not as easy as we think they should be. If they were that easy we would have liberty now.

Try to see things from the perspective of the reality of the era they lived in. Tht is how to properly measure people of the past. THose of the past could not live by our standards because they did not live in our era.

                                  $

Stefan Molyneux:

I'm going to try to end slavery, and I'm not holding as my hero, my personal salvation, a man whose sole verifiable claim as an abolitionist is that he votes against enslaving more people - who get enslaved anyway.

These illusions are too entrenched for evidence to penetrate.

I see, since they are going to get enslaved anyways why bother trying? I am reminded of Sentor Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. One lone man fighting against the odds.  If you do nothing nothing will be the result. You may not acheive great results after 5 or 10 years but you will not know if you don't try.

                                           $

" You think I'm licked. I'm going to keep talking, somebody will listen."

     - Senator Jeffereson Smith (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington)

H. Rearden:

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.

Do you use the interstate highway system?

                $

corporateschill:

Don't be a Paul hater..... 

Freebie:

Ronpaulfan:

alextruberg:

I think the main point that M.A.'s are trying to make is that it's time for us to start reconizing and vocalizing that we'd rather have no president at all... and showing support for a political candidate is tacit support for the existance of the office itself.

I understand their point, but the whole system is going to collapse anyway. I'm not worried, since the whole thing is gone in 10 or 15 years...but 10 or 15 years is a good 1/5th or 1/6th of my expected lifespan, and I want those years to also be a little less bad. Ron Paul as president would veto a hell of a lot of stuff...shit like the patriot Act and war in iraq and afghanistan wouldn't have happened. 9/11 would never have happened as Ron Paul would have said no to their conspiracy theory as Kennedy did to Operation Northwoods.

When I vote for him in 08, I am voting to save myself thou$ands in taxes, thousands or millions in war casualties and "terrorism" related sham acts, and liberty-curtailing regulations such as the Patriot Act. Honestly, a couple hundred or thousands of dollars saved plus not seeing my friends die in war is enough reason for me to vote...I am not willing to sacrifice thousands of dollars of my own money to higher taxes to make some moral statement that no one else will see or appreciate. I helped sponsor 1 anti-Iraq rally on campus (time cost 5 hours x $8 an hour lost wages)=$40. For that, I got newspaper coverage and 120 people to demonstrate together...far more influence than not voting would have had. I am not willing to pay thousands of dollars to make a small and unnoticed moral stand.

You are making a statement either way. If you vote for Ron Paul (or Hillary) you are making a positive statement that the state apparatus is logical and moral. You are justifying it's continued existence for another generation. How much money and lives will that cost in the long run? When you vote in '08, you are saying nothing other than violence is good and that moral contradictions are acceptable. You lose the integrity to say "this thing... this government fantasy. It's all wrong."

My point was that I am willing to sacrifice a moral stand that no one would recognize to save the lives of US and Iraqi people and save tax dollars for myself...maybe selfish but a trade-off I am willing to make. I also take a scholarship for college from the state...and people including Stef don't have a problem with that. My voting isn't encouraging statism...whether 100 million or 100 million and one votes are cast will make no difference in the perceived "legitamacy" of any elected government.

And to the person who asked how I knew the system would collaspe in 10 or 15 years, I know it will in America due to crushing debt...Do you remember FDR 292 and FDR 299? If so, give those a refresher listen.

Summary:  Does this have to be an either/ or proposition.  Ron Paul isn't necessarily good, but couldn't it be better than the status quo? 

Stefan Molyneux:

Excellent points Freebie. I'm not going to debate Ron Paul any more, since I've now asked several times for evidence that he has reduced the size of government in his home district, where he has power, and all I get in response is that Ron has not voted to increase taxes.

This is a good point.  If Mr. Paul hasn't actually reduced government and spending at home what guarantee is there that he will reduce it elsewhere?

What I'm having trouble is that I don't see that this necessarily has to be an either or dichotomy.  There have been various analogies such as reduced slave beatings or fewer murders, and while ideally slavery and murder wouldn't exist they do.  Maybe I'm schizophrenic and talking out both sides of my face but I'm not convinced that you can't oppose government and use government at the same time.

Isn't the reduction of evil better than the status quo?  I'm not saying here that electing Ron Paul is good, but can't it be a tool for improving the situation at least a little?  I don't think he has a chance of being elected, but if he were and put a stop to the Iraq war, don't you think all the soldiers and Iraqis would be happier alive than dead?

Market anarchy is my goal, but I don't think a snap of my fingers will bring it about.  This will take years of discussion and opening up the minds of others.  What I see people proposing with Ron Paul is an attempt to make life a little better.  Some of them may be minarchists, but I think anarchists can fight to reduce government one step at a time and still be proud of their progress.

I need to find the quote and book but Murry Rothbard wrote something that stuck with me and that is any step made to reduce government is a good step so long as we never back pedal and allow government to grow in any other area.

 I haven't voted for years and I don't have any plans to vote in the upcoming election, and I think this issue is bigger than Ron Paul.  Can't you support a person, group, or tactic that is making progress in reducing the state and once they stall move on to another group or tactic that will take you further along the path to your goal?

So if someone could explain or even repeat, why this must be an either/ or proposition and not merely a step in the right direction I would appreciate it.