Ron Paul and the Singularity

[Vagos]

[ 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 ]

Well like I said, I probably won't be voting. But I wouldn't crucify fellow libertarians who do. A vote for Ron Paul isn't necessarily an endorsement of government, it's an endorsement of Ron Paul and a cry for drastic change. Like I said, hearing much of the stuff he's had to say, I would not be surprised if he's pretty damn close to being an anarchist, philosophically. He is the candidate who is in favor of maximum freedom, minimum govt' intrusion by far. A vote for him is a vote for a more free market economy and more individual liberty.

I don't completely disagree with you I just don't think guys like you and Nielso should be so quick to judge the methods of fellow libertarians who'd rather vote for Ron Paul than sit around with a holier than thou attitude while Big Brother continues to grow and is always looking over their shoulder.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Another George Bush is a step in the wrong direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have a feeling that despite what Tom said, he would run to the polls in support of Ron Paul if he learned he could cast the deciding vote between Ron Paul and George Bush.

[Metric]

[ 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 ]
40 years, Tom. That's the timeframe we're dealing with, with regards to leading up to the singularity. How long is it going to be before the US and other key technological players agree that the state is evil and simply give it up? Give me dates, here. 5 or 10 years from now? If you think so, maybe your strategy is best.

Maximizing technological innovation over the next 40 years is the game we're playing, if you want a decent shot at living far beyond your standard human lifespan. And the way to do that is not to sit on your hands and discourage Libertarians from voting, while Socialists make their standard grab for power and smother progress.

We're not talking about centuries down the line -- we're talking about now. The next 40 years. The runup to the Singularity. You're not going to get that time back. Maybe the company that would have made a key breakthrough in neurochip integration just went under yesterday because capital gains tax etc. restricted the amount of investment capital out there, and made investing in them just not quite profitable enough.

I'll save my hard-line non-participatory stance until slightly AFTER we have a technological fountain of youth.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Well like I said, I probably won't be voting. But I wouldn't crucify fellow libertarians who do. A vote for Ron Paul isn't necessarily an endorsement of government, it's an endorsement of Ron Paul and a cry for drastic change. Like I said, hearing much of the stuff he's had to say, I would not be surprised if he's pretty damn close to being an anarchist, philosophically. He is the candidate who is in favor of maximum freedom, minimum govt' intrusion by far. A vote for him is a vote for a more free market economy and more individual liberty.

I don't completely disagree with you I just don't think guys like you and Nielso should be so quick to judge the methods of fellow libertarians who'd rather vote for Ron Paul than sit around with a holier than thou attitude while Big Brother continues to grow and is always looking over their shoulder.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the holier than thou attitude or at least convincing people that anyone who endorses the state is not holy and rather evil is the only chance we have of ridding ourselves of Big Brother. I'd love to vote for Ron Paul, wouldn't life be so much easier if democracy did what it said it did and the state could be used for good it'd be amazing. If voting for Ron Paul would do anything positive there may be a case for it but it undermines the AC position. If Ron Paul didn't exist he'd have to be invented. Supporting him is the perfect way to pacify libertarians and ACists in to thinking they're making progress when nothing of the sort is happening.

A vote for Ron Paul is an endorsement of government. This comes down to the things you say vs the things you do stuff that I've been trying to get across. Ron Paul doesn't know that you're an anarchist. All he knows is that you voted (a statist act) for a guy who has stated that there are good (as in morally good) ways to spend tax money.

To vote for Ron Paul then go back to saying participation in the system is wrong, the lesser of two evils isn't a choice and so on smacks of hypocrisy and completely undermines your argument (and whats worse mine too).

[Vagos]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea this is a good point. Anyone who buys into the social contract theory says I have to abide by it, whether I vote or not.

Bottom line; I think you can vote for Ron Paul without losing the moral high ground. Personally, I doubt I will vote, for various reasons, but I have no problem with any libertarians/ACists who just want to take a step in the right direction.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Well like I said, I probably won't be voting. But I wouldn't crucify fellow libertarians who do. A vote for Ron Paul isn't necessarily an endorsement of government, it's an endorsement of Ron Paul and a cry for drastic change. Like I said, hearing much of the stuff he's had to say, I would not be surprised if he's pretty damn close to being an anarchist, philosophically. He is the candidate who is in favor of maximum freedom, minimum govt' intrusion by far. A vote for him is a vote for a more free market economy and more individual liberty.

I don't completely disagree with you I just don't think guys like you and Nielso should be so quick to judge the methods of fellow libertarians who'd rather vote for Ron Paul than sit around with a holier than thou attitude while Big Brother continues to grow and is always looking over their shoulder.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the holier than thou attitude or at least convincing people that anyone who endorses the state is not holy and rather evil is the only chance we have of ridding ourselves of Big Brother. I'd love to vote for Ron Paul, wouldn't life be so much easier if democracy did what it said it did and the state could be used for good it'd be amazing. If voting for Ron Paul would do anything positive there may be a case for it but it undermines the AC position. If Ron Paul didn't exist he'd have to be invented. Supporting him is the perfect way to pacify libertarians and ACists in to thinking they're making progress when nothing of the sort is happening.

A vote for Ron Paul is an endorsement of government. This comes down to the things you say vs the things you do stuff that I've been trying to get across. Ron Paul doesn't know that you're an anarchist. All he knows is that you voted (a statist act) for a guy who has stated that there are good (as in morally good) ways to spend tax money.

To vote for Ron Paul then go back to saying participation in the system is wrong, the lesser of two evils isn't a choice and so on smacks of hypocrisy and completely undermines your argument (and whats worse mine too).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I hear some of what your saying, but I honestly don't think you give Ron Paul enough credit for being a pretty staunch libertarian. I don't consider him the "lesser of two evils" because, quite frankly, he isn't part of any "two". Generally speaking, he is a fringe candidate with ideas for some very drastic changes to our country and the role of government.

Let's put it this way. Ron Paul has absolutely no shot in the world of being sworn in to office in January of 2009. But I like to see the MESSAGE is getting out there. The message of freedom, liberty and free markets is what's important here. And the more support people like Ron Paul get, the less fringe their ideas will be, and the more support for libertarianism will spawn, overall. If someone wants to go out and pull a lever one November morning so that they feel like they are helping to progress the ideas of freedom and liberty, I have no problem.

[phantomlimb]

I disagree with that idea, but I'm willing to change my mind if you can provide me with good enough reason. People are born into large areas of land called states, and it is not the simplest of things under the current system to move a large distance from one state to another. Housing prices vary, transportation cost, etc etc... I do not see how it is fair to allow the states to essentially do whatever they want. If the state wants to have something to do with recognizing marriage, it is not in their authority to discriminate against individuals... That goes for abortion and other things as well.

[DVaut1]

Wow, so libertarians and ACists are constantly warning us against the dangers of falling victim to outlandish campaign promises and pie-in-the-sky rhetoric that 'mainstream' Democrats and Republicans in America throw at us.

Good thing you guys haven't fallen victim to that:

[ QUOTE ]
vote Ron Paul and live for 100,000,000 years at a level of consciousness beyond your wildest dreams, personally visiting other solar systems, etc. etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul: A vote for immortality and interplanetary tourism!

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]

Well I hear some of what your saying, but I honestly don't think you give Ron Paul enough credit for being a pretty staunch libertarian. I don't consider him the "lesser of two evils" because, quite frankly, he isn't part of any "two".

[/ QUOTE ]
He believes that taxation is a good way of achieving some goals.

[ QUOTE ]

Let's put it this way. Ron Paul has absolutely no shot in the world of being sworn in to office in January of 2009.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed

[ QUOTE ]
But I like to see the MESSAGE is getting out there. The message of freedom, liberty and free markets is what's important here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then spread the message! Arguing that some politicians are ok and some taxes aren't that bad and the two party system can spawn a good choice sometimes isn't spreading that message.

[ QUOTE ]
If someone wants to go out and pull a lever one November morning so that they feel like they are helping to progress the ideas of freedom and liberty, I have no problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the problem. Feel like they are helping. If they feel that Ron Paul is part of the solution then they are less likely to do the things that actually are part of the solution it's not enough to talk about your convictions you have to live them.

[Thug Bubbles]

What you're essentially saying is that you're not interested in moving towards AC'ism.