In point of fact, neither I, nor the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters regard him as a messiah, and we do not expect Anarcho-capi-utopistan to replace the good ol' U.S. of A. should he achieve the vaunted position of President. We understand he has flaws, areas where we disagree. Neither do we think that supporting him is necessarily sufficient to achieve our goals of personal and political liberty in our lifetimes. In fact, electing him would be one step in the right direction, and opening salvo in a long slog through a wilderness of ignorance, avarice, corruption and brutality. It is but one front on this wide ranging and volatile conflict between we who cherish freedom and those who seek to control others through fear and threats of violence. Infiltrating the Mafia is a good idea if you can actually stop it from killing and stealing as much, if lives are saved, businesses and livelihoods saved, legs left unbroken, etc., then these are positive changes in the pattern of abuse that would have continued without your intervention. In fact, the comparison to the Mafia is apt, as nothing is so similar to the government than organized crime and it's protection rackets. All they need is a bureaucracy with forms to fill out, and they'd be there.

In short, Ron Paul is not the end all and be all of my personal quest for freedom, but supporting his campaign is consistent with my values, and worthy of my time, effort and financial support, especially if it pays dividends like a diminishment in the size, scope and power of the U.S. Federal government, most importantly, ending the war in Iraq that's killing hundreds of thousands of innocents (I cannot, in good conscience, do nothing about that, and the only means to end it at my disposal are political) and the associated destruction of civil liberties here at home. Even if it simply awakens a movement, a desire for change, it is positive, and frankly, I think Stef is just jealous that the movement coalesced around Ron Paul and not Freedomain Radio.

It's a false dichotomy that Stef sets up around RP. We are not choosing between the rEVOLution and personal freedom. We do not have an either/or decision to make when we pursue these ends. We all stand to benefit a great deal from the campaign, and a successful one, with RP elected would be the greatest victory for the cause of liberty since the American revolution. Wilt Alston suggested that an RP administration would amount to using force to inflict libertarianism on America. I do not see how reducing the amount of violent force exerted by the government on it's citizens, as well as Iraqis, can possibly be interpreted that way. It's absurd to me.

In short, Ron Paul will not save us all, nor will he solve my personal problems or improve my relationships with my family and friends. But he can reduce the amount of violence the state does to all of us, and he can restore the legitimacy of individual rights and personal responsibility in the political arena, shifting us away from the welfare/warfare paradigm. He can give me back the few protections from government afforded me by the Bill of Rights, which will allow us all to spread the message of Anarchy and Free Markets without being persecuted as extremists or terrorists. I want that. I do not want to be saying "I told you so" to the other unfortunate residents of Halliburton/KBR concentration camp 467.

I understand that the Ron Paul campaign is not sufficient to achieve all my goals for liberty. However, my participation does not, in any way, mean I have given up on seeking freedom in my own life and relationships. It does not mean that if he succeeds in getting elected, I will sit back, relax and await the arrival of perfect liberty. It is part of the process, one way of moving things in the right direction, and that transition is, to my mind, a better option than awaiting or accelerating the collapse of the state (by supporting Hillary or Romney), which, without the philosophical basis for liberty (that Ron Paul's campaign is an excellent and already wildly successful vehicle for spreading) will likely result in brutal wars for control over the remnants of the state, violence, chaos and the realization of everyone's worst fears of "anarchy," setting us back hundreds and hundreds of years. I don't want that.

OK, you're right. Poorly worded. I too do not think that natural rights exist (that's a particularly theist argument, as in "endowed by our creator with inalienable rights...") but rather that they are mutually beneficial agreements between people that facilitate the peaceful and orderly function of society.

Much of our morality is actually based on our intuition, arising from genetically determined neurobiology, selected for through eons of living in social groups. The rest is learned behavior, and we in the post-Enlightenment West respect individual rights, as the individual is the basic moral unit, the agent of action.

The Bill of Rights was an attempt on the founder's part to enumerate the fundamental rights that the government was agreeing, or rather emphatically promising, to respect and defend. They used to do a fairly decent job of upholding their end of the bargain (with notable exceptions). They do not anymore. So, in the context of our "rights as mutually beneficial reciprocal agreements," Ron Paul can do a great deal to stop the government from violating those rights it specifically was intended to protect, and that is what I meant by "give me back..." He can make it better hold up it's end of the deal with respect to rights.

Exy might find this interesting. Apparently even the FDR people are starting to wonder why the full-on assault on RP continues. Of course Stef isn't responding to this direct question.

Some time ago I anticipated just what the hell the FDR'ers are doing now re Ron Paul:

Subject: the failure of the Ron Paul rEVOLution Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:38 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what irks me already is that the 'anti-Ron Paul people' like Stef and his following will see almost anything as proving their thoughts and feelings and predictions about Ron Paul's campaign and presidential future.

When Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, they will think they have been right. When RP wins the nomination but doesnt get enough votes to beat Hilary, they wuill think they have been right. When RP wins the nomination but gets assasinated or 'suicided' or whatever they will think they have been right. When RP somehow actually does become president but doesn't get anything important done, they will think they have been right (this time with a bit more reason), when RP becomes president, manages to pull out the troops from Iraq, abolish the Fed but doesnt get anything else done, they will think they have been right and so on and so forth.

in short, they will take just about anything to show that they have been right all along.

But the Ron Paul supporters or sympathisers don't claim that any success in whatever form is guaranteed or that it will be easy or whatever. My own point of view for example, as explained in my LewRockwell article focuses solely on the positive results that the RP campaign has for spreading the word and in those terms it has been tremendously successful already.

anyway, at least Ron Paul doesnt try to make you emotionally dependent on him and pressure you to ditch you friends and family and follow him instead and not question or criticise him anymore.

I feel ya Conrad, and you're right that some will take the RP campaign as proof of their 'philosophy'.

Maybe some should go back and listen to the podcasts on logical fallacies. Maybe even the speaker. Maybe more than once.

Hi guys,

A few points:

"Natural rights" implies that rights are derived from the state of "nature." There is nothing necessarily theistic about it, despite the fact that some people, such as many of the "Founding Fathers" regarded these natural rights to be god-given, because they believed nature was created by god. Just as there are natural laws in the sciences of physics, biology, chemistry, etc., there are natural laws in the areas of economics and philosophy. They do not depend on you accepting an ultimate creator or not, they simply exist as a matter of fact due to the way reality is. For example, the earth revolves around the sun due to the law of gravity. You don't need to believe god or anyone else bestowed gravity upon the world for gravity to act as a force and exist materially on its own.

Similarly, rights are not things which are granted from one individual to another based on mutual consent. Rights exist, due to man's nature and the nature of his environment, end of story. Whether individuals and groups of individuals decide to recognize those rights or not is another matter entirely. I have a right of property in myself, based on my nature, whether you try to enslave me or not. And when you do try to enslave me, I can realize an injustice is occuring because of this fact. My right of property in myself doesn't suddenly vanish because you decide not to recognize it.

This view is a form of existential relativism, the idea that "reality is what you make of it" and that if you close your eyes the world disappears.

Consequently, this is why if Ron Paul were elected Chief of the Tyrants, he could not "give" you your rights back. He might choose to recognize your rights more than they are currently being recognized by the Criminal Collective. He might prevent the Criminal Collective from violating your rights further... but he can't "give" you your rights. You have your rights, in tact, right now, they just aren't being recognized by everyone, apparently.


About "joining the Mafia." I think the problem with this strategy, which you are missing, is that to join the Mafia one must participate in the Mafia. You can't just join the Mafia and only work against it and not engage in any of the criminal activity the Mafia survives and grows off of, or else you'd be kicked out of the Mafia if not sent to sleep with the fishes entirely. Similarly, you can't just join the government and then work solely against the government and not violate anyone's rights in the process... like Ron Paul, you'd be paid a salary that is forcibly extorted from other people, and you'd be requested to engage in other forceful rights violations in the name of "faithfully executing the office." If you suddenly stopped violating peoples' rights, refused your tax-derived paycheck, etc., you'd most likely be ignored/thrown out of office. Remember, politics is a game, and other politicians wouldn't take too kindly to you not playing the game. If you got into office and refused your tax-salary and then set about to only repeal all aggressive legislation, which politicians would help you in this task? You couldn't do it alone.

You'd at least need other freedom-minded people like yourself in power at the same time with you, and that, my friends, is the real rub of the Ron Paul campaign/presidency and its hope for smashing the State from within, at least this election... there simply aren't enough libertarian-minded people in the electorate to elect other libertarian-minded individuals into positions of power to help out with this Grand Project.


Guys, I don't want to pick a fight with anyone but when someone says something like this, "Wilt Alston suggested that an RP administration would amount to using force to inflict libertarianism on America. I do not see how reducing the amount of violent force exerted by the government on it's citizens, as well as Iraqis, can possibly be interpreted that way. It's absurd to me." (Dylboz), that's not really a point, it's just a statement of confusion and I don't think it deserves a lot of cheering or back-patting. Maybe some "Yeah I don't get that either" but "Person X says Y, I don't get it" isn't a refutation of Y (unless we're arguing by authority, where Dylboz is the authority in this case and thus something that confuses him must be illogical by definition). Just wanted to point that out.

EDIT: Just wanted to add this link to a blog post I wrote a little while back... read it, and then tell me what you think... would "libertarian" Ron Paul let me go, or would he instead threaten me with death and imprisonment in the name of freedom?