Ron Paul and the Singularity

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
And he refused to support gays in the military!!!!

And he would give the states the right to discriminate! >(

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually listen to what he said? He specifically said that they can serve but they can't engage in disruptive behavior as determined by their commanding officers and the same applies to heterosexuals.

Also, where is this "states the right to discriminate" stuff coming from?

[phantomlimb]

He would not directly say to get rid of the don't ask don't tell policy because he is afraid of losing votes.

Also, I get the impression he would allow the states to ban abortion and ban gay marriage. While I am somewhat pro-life, I feel the states must have to defer to the federal government about civil rights issues...

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would living long enough to personally see the sun become a red giant be fair compensation for feeling a bit uneasy about stooping to vote for a Libertarian over a Socialist?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is Ron Paul takes us further away from that. For once I'm with Nielso. Give me the raging mustachioed communist dictator, and give me true honest convicted freedom lovers who won't waver to preach taxation is evil! Violence is evil! The state is evil! Until it begins to sink in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just isn't going to happen. Nobody can handle the concept of no state.

I'd like a very small chance of a Ron Paul presidency over a virtually non-existent chance of no state at all.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
He would not directly say to get rid of the don't ask don't tell policy because he is afraid of losing votes.


[/ QUOTE ]
You can read minds now? Anyways, I don't think Ron Paul has too many votes to lose.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I get the impression he would allow the states to ban abortion and ban gay marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you can read minds?
[ QUOTE ]
While I am somewhat pro-life, I feel the states must have to defer to the federal government about civil rights issues...

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
He would not directly say to get rid of the don't ask don't tell policy because he is afraid of losing votes.

Also, I get the impression he would allow the states to ban abortion and ban gay marriage. While I am somewhat pro-life, I feel the states must have to defer to the federal government about civil rights issues...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree he probably didn't want to say it that way for fear of losing votes.

He would indeed allow states to ban abortion (I'm pretty sure gay marriage too).

It is a horrendous idea to have the federal government dictate these things to the states. If you let the states make these decisions then people can "vote with their feet" and go to a less oppressive state. When the federal government makes these decisions you have no recourse. By having a loose federation of states you get some degree of protection of the minorities, that is the genius of the American Constitutional Republic. Sadly the ridiculous growth of the Federal government and the ignoring of the constitution have ruined all that.

[phantomlimb]

Because I do not think the states have the right to violate individual liberties, even if they vote for it.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would living long enough to personally see the sun become a red giant be fair compensation for feeling a bit uneasy about stooping to vote for a Libertarian over a Socialist?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is Ron Paul takes us further away from that. For once I'm with Nielso. Give me the raging mustachioed communist dictator, and give me true honest convicted freedom lovers who won't waver to preach taxation is evil! Violence is evil! The state is evil! Until it begins to sink in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but as a fellow ACist, I have to disagree. Sure, I don't agree with Ron Paul on every single issue, but frankly, at this point in time, I don't care. Just the fact that the overall liberty/free market message is getting out there, to a wider audience, is good enough for me. I probably won't vote but I don't see anything wrong with libertarians and ACists supporting Ron Paul.

AC is not going to happen overnight!

You and Nielso seem to think that it will. That one day everyone will just wake up and start reading Rothbard and watching youtube podcasts and suddenly be converted. Not gonna happen. In fact, I am quite sure nothing close to AC will happen in our lifetimes. But why not make things better rather than worse? Why not try and convert more moderate people into minarchist libertarians and then take it from there?

I know that for me, I had to become a minarchist before I became an ACist. I think that's probably the case for 9/10 ACists on this forum. Even though my philosophy is one of AC, I am still dealing with the confines of reality. And believe me, it's going to take baby steps at first and Ron Paul being all over CNN, FoxNews and the mainstream internet sites is a good enough start.

And when you say you'd rather have George W. Bush for another 4 years than Ron Paul, wow? WTF!? Give Ron Paul a break...he is dealing within the confines of the system in order to achieve a greater goal of spreading the word of liberty and free markets. Philosophically, he could very well be an anarchist, but if he came out saying that on TV, the networks would not give him the time of day.

[tomdemaine]

Ok. But when you vote for Ron Paul, that X is your signature on the social contract that the statists keep going on about. You're saying that certain forms of taxation are ok, you're saying that governments can do better than the market in some areas, you're saying that voting for the lesser of two evils is a worthwhile choice and that democracy can work. You're conceding the whole game and giving up the only bargaining chip we have, the moral high ground, for a fools hope that Ron Paul can somehow cause a change in the US.

If you give it up for any boy who comes along and whispers the right words in your ear you're going to become the school [censored].

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would living long enough to personally see the sun become a red giant be fair compensation for feeling a bit uneasy about stooping to vote for a Libertarian over a Socialist?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is Ron Paul takes us further away from that. For once I'm with Nielso. Give me the raging mustachioed communist dictator, and give me true honest convicted freedom lovers who won't waver to preach taxation is evil! Violence is evil! The state is evil! Until it begins to sink in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but as a fellow ACist, I have to disagree. Sure, I don't agree with Ron Paul on every single issue, but frankly, at this point in time, I don't care. Just the fact that the overall liberty/free market message is getting out there, to a wider audience, is good enough for me. I probably won't vote but I don't see anything wrong with libertarians and ACists supporting Ron Paul.

AC is not going to happen overnight!

You and Nielso seem to think that it will. That one day everyone will just wake up and start reading Rothbard and watching youtube podcasts and suddenly be converted. Not gonna happen. In fact, I am quite sure nothing close to AC will happen in our lifetimes. But why not make things better rather than worse? Why not try and convert more moderate people into minarchist libertarians and then take it from there?

I know that for me, I had to become a minarchist before I became an ACist. I think that's probably the case for 9/10 ACists on this forum. Even though my philosophy is one of AC, I am still dealing with the confines of reality. And believe me, it's going to take baby steps at first and Ron Paul being all over CNN, FoxNews and the mainstream internet sites is a good enough start.

And when you say you'd rather have George W. Bush for another 4 years than Ron Paul, wow? WTF!? Give Ron Paul a break...he is dealing within the confines of the system in order to achieve a greater goal of spreading the word of liberty and free markets. Philosophically, he could very well be an anarchist, but if he came out saying that on TV, the networks would not give him the time of day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, the US has strong minarchist roots with the founding fathers, constitution, etc. People can understand these things. From there, they can start to realize that the state probably shouldn't exist period.

Look at this forum, people move to AC through minarchism. It's usually a gradual process, not a huge snap into ACism.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. But when you vote for Ron Paul, that X is your signature on the social contract that the statists keep going on about. You're saying that certain forms of taxation are ok, you're saying that governments can do better than the market in some areas, you're saying that voting for the lesser of two evils is a worthwhile choice and that democracy can work. You're conceding the whole game and giving up the only bargaining chip we have, the moral high ground, for a fools hope that Ron Paul can somehow cause a change in the US.

If you give it up for any boy who comes along and whispers the right words in your ear you're going to become the school [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, the statists don't require that you vote in order to agree to their "social contract", mere existence is sufficient according to them.

I believe a vote for Ron Paul is a (very significant) step in the right direction. Another George Bush is a step in the wrong direction.