Rep. Ron Paul on Liberty and Democracy

[hagbard]

Sorry, Mr. Franklin, ?We?re All Democrats Now?

 

[tcsenter]

Good Old Ron Paul, the US Representative from Texas who never met a bill he liked. He is still living in 1789 as are most of his backwoods rural constituents.

When ever you hear about a vote in the House which is like 426 - 2, or 2 - 426, Ron Paul is most assuredly always one of the two.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Good Old Ron Paul, the US Representative from Texas who never met a bill he liked. He is still living in 1789 as are most of his backwoods rural constituents.

When ever you hear about a vote in the House which is like 426 - 2, or 2 - 426, Ron Paul is most assuredly always one of the two.

Sounds like my kinda guy!

 

[Queasy]

Hagbard posts something I agree with. :Q

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Hagbard posts something I agree with. :Q

With exception to Paul's stance on abortion, I have to agree as well!

Hag, what's up with that? How is it I'm agreeing with you, and disagreeing with TC??? :Q:Q:Q

 

[Linflas]

If Madison?s assessment was correct, it behooves those of us in Congress to take note and decide, indeed, whether the Republic has vanished, when it occurred, and exactly what to expect in the way of ?turbulence, contention, and violence.? And above all else, what can we and what will we do about it?

In my opinion these 2 Constitutional ammendments are what paved the way for the behemoth that is todays Federal government.

Amendment XVI
This one feeds the beast.
Amendment XVII
This one removes the states representatives in the Federal system.

The rest as they say is history.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Hagbard posts something I agree with. :Q

Cool! Did you read the entire thing Queasy?

 

[cipher00]

Actually, it was FDR who first reliably started to call the country a democracy. Better for the Democrats? Ask your average schmo what type of government we've got and you'll get 'democracy' almost every time (apart from the unprintable responses!). Go figure.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Queasy
Hagbard posts something I agree with. :Q

With exception to Paul's stance on abortion, I have to agree as well!

Hag, what's up with that? How is it I'm agreeing with you, and disagreeing with TC??? :Q:Q:Q

We're likely both libertarians...I being on the market anarchist "wing".

Here is another Ron Paul speech from September of last year:

Ron Paul - A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Good Old Ron Paul, the US Representative from Texas who never met a bill he liked. He is still living in 1789 as are most of his backwoods rural constituents.

When ever you hear about a vote in the House which is like 426 - 2, or 2 - 426, Ron Paul is most assuredly always one of the two.

TS, I am surprised that you disagree with Paul's assessment. I personally think he is pretty much right on.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Queasy
Hagbard posts something I agree with. :Q

Cool! Did you read the entire thing Queasy?

Scanned through it and am now reading it closely.

Linflas left out the law that allows the government to take taxes directly out of our paychecks. Previously, taxes were paid by individuals in one lump sum after the year was over. This law was implemented during WWII so that the federal government could collect tax revenue in a faster manner. The drawing of taxes from the paychecks was meant to end when WWII did but unfortunately, it still continues today. The result? The average American does not realize how much taxes they pay for an entire year and compare the cost/benefits of government programs. They also get 'happy' when they overpay the government and are allowed to receive some of their money back.

 

[Novgrod]

The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmund Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: ?The general object was to produce a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.?

These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracy and the benefits of a Constitutional Republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and therefore completely arbitrary.

It's hard to ascribe any single thought to the founders, what with the diversity in that particular group.

I really, really don't think that Randolph is indicative of the overwhelming belief of the founders; indeed it's probably self-contradicting. The "democracy" to which he's referring is probably the government under the Articles of the Confederation, the complaint against which was its laxness/lack of power.

At any rate, if there's any convincing hatred of democracy in the creation of the constitution then it's really hard to find.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: cipher00
Actually, it was FDR who first reliably started to call the country a democracy.

i thought it was Wilson

 

[jjones]

The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

Yeah, mob rule, ain't it great.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jjones

The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

Yeah, mob rule, ain't it great.

Good gawd, is jjones agreeing with us too???

WTF, is it trade political opinion day on ATOT???

Did I miss a memo???

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjones

The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

Yeah, mob rule, ain't it great.

Good gawd, is jjones agreeing with us too???

WTF, is it trade political opinion day on ATOT???

Did I miss a memo???

Hey, Amused, have you had a look at the other link?

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjones

The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

Yeah, mob rule, ain't it great.

Good gawd, is jjones agreeing with us too???

WTF, is it trade political opinion day on ATOT???

Did I miss a memo???

ROFL

This crap is exactly why I can't live in the States anymore; I got fed up with too many of my small everyday freedoms being taken away on a daily basis. Now I'm down in Mexico where I can have a beer in public without anyone getting bent about it.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjones

The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

Yeah, mob rule, ain't it great.

Good gawd, is jjones agreeing with us too???

WTF, is it trade political opinion day on ATOT???

Did I miss a memo???

ROFL

This crap is exactly why I can't live in the States anymore; I got fed up with too many of my small everyday freedoms being taken away on a daily basis. Now I'm down in Mexico where I can have a beer in public without anyone getting bent about it.

If you moved to Canada, you could smoke a joint without anyone getting bent about it (except the cops, of course) You'd also have lots of other American friends up here to join you, like the host of this "show" Steve Kubby's Pot-TV News

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Checking in

A plus for liberty too.

What concerns me is that one day the concept of liberty may be applauded, but if exercised in a non approved way, one could be branded an enemy combatant or called a terrorist. Now before the anti tin foil crowd comes out, remember Tail Gunner Joe. It has not been that long ago, and fearful people tend to commit the same sort of mistakes.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Queasy
Hagbard posts something I agree with. :Q

With exception to Paul's stance on abortion, I have to agree as well!

Hag, what's up with that? How is it I'm agreeing with you, and disagreeing with TC??? :Q:Q:Q

We're likely both libertarians...I being on the market anarchist "wing".

Here is another Ron Paul speech from September of last year:

Ron Paul - A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty

I agree with some of what he's saying, but not all. And I must take issue with his believing in Gulf Lore Syndrome. (but that's another thread)

Isolationism does not always work. Granted, we could use a bit more of it, but in this world we cannot go back to the pre WWI/II level of isolationism. It was bad enough that we waited until the entire world went mad (twice) back then, and lost millions of lives trying to save it, and ourselves. But today, if the world goes mad like that, we'll lose everything... quickly.

Since the nuclear and bio genies have been let out of the bottle, we cannot be an island unto ourselves anymore. To a lessor extent, this applies to world trade as well. If there is any lesson we learned from WWI/II, it must be this.

I agree with Paul on a great many things. But Abortion and Isolationism are not issues I agree with him on. Although I do respect his opinion.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjones

The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

Yeah, mob rule, ain't it great.

Good gawd, is jjones agreeing with us too???

WTF, is it trade political opinion day on ATOT???

Did I miss a memo???

ROFL

This crap is exactly why I can't live in the States anymore; I got fed up with too many of my small everyday freedoms being taken away on a daily basis. Now I'm down in Mexico where I can have a beer in public without anyone getting bent about it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Amused- one ought to be careful about being too proactive. Yes, alert and prepared, but crushing any people for fear of what they might do one day is IMO antithetical to the concept of freedom and liberty. Thought and restraint is needed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Amused- one ought to be careful about being too proactive. Yes, alert and prepared, but crushing any people for fear of what they might do one day is IMO antithetical to the concept of freedom and liberty. Thought and restraint is needed.

Oh, I agree. There is a fine line that must not be crossed. The problem is determining just where that line is.

As always, hindsight is 20/20. Would the same pro/con arguments be made today if we were trying to stop Hitler in 1934? It's just too bad you can't know what a tyrant is capable of, until he's gone and done it.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Queasy
Hagbard posts something I agree with. :Q

With exception to Paul's stance on abortion, I have to agree as well!

Hag, what's up with that? How is it I'm agreeing with you, and disagreeing with TC??? :Q:Q:Q

We're likely both libertarians...I being on the market anarchist "wing".

Here is another Ron Paul speech from September of last year:

Ron Paul - A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty

I agree with some of what he's saying, but not all. And I must take issue with his believing in Gulf Lore Syndrome. (but that's another thread)

Isolationism does not always work. Granted, we could use a bit more of it, but in this world we cannot go back to the pre WWI/II level of isolationism. It was bad enough that we waited until the entire world went mad (twice) back then, and lost millions of lives trying to save it, and ourselves.

I might have to grant you WWII, but not WWI, were I believe US intervention did a great deal of harm. An alternative, which was already underway, was for private individuals and businesses to aid the allied side during WWII. The war already turned on Hitler following his invasion of the USSR, though had the US not stepped in, Europe could have fallen under Soviet domination. We don't know...

But today, if the world goes mad like that, we'll lose everything... quickly.

But don't you think that US intervention is what is causing much of the terrorism, growth in WMD and anti-Americanism?

Since the nuclear and bio genies have been let out of the bottle, we cannot be an island unto ourselves anymore. To a lessor extent, this applies to world trade as well. If there is any lesson we learned from WWI/II, it must be this.

Hence, why I believe it must be some neutral body that deals with such issues, not the United States. I'm an anarchist, so its hard for me to say that, but given that the world is made up of often hostile states, we need some forum to deal with these issues when the arrise. If not, I think each nation will have a strong incentive to get their own nukes to protect their sovereignty. Remember, one justification for government is the protection of one's nation against the aggressive acts of others...they would be irresponsible not to do what is necessary to assure that sovereignty.

I agree with Paul on a great many things. But Abortion and Isolationism are not issues I agree with him on. Although I do respect his opinion.

What's his position on abortion? I could see a libertarian argument from both sides.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Amused- one ought to be careful about being too proactive. Yes, alert and prepared, but crushing any people for fear of what they might do one day is IMO antithetical to the concept of freedom and liberty. Thought and restraint is needed.

Oh, I agree. There is a fine line that must not be crossed. The problem is determining just where that line is.

As always, hindsight is 20/20. Would the same pro/con arguments be made today if we were trying to stop Hitler in 1934? It's just too bad you can't know what a tyrant is capable of, until he's gone and done it.

Hi Amused, you are a libertarian, right? The line can be determined (in most cases) using the non-aggression axiom. A war with Iraq wouldn't meet that requirement, in fact, would place the US on the other side of it.