Dr President Ron Paul (1 Viewer)

[volition]

Re: Doctor President Pon Raul

If you're waiting for governments to grow so large that they collapse, wouldn't it make sense for you to vote for big-government supporting parties, since this would speed the emergence of anarchocapitalism?

Haha I briefly considered this, but then I realised that its not really gonna work like that.

The way to bring about anarcho-capitalism is to change the mentality of the slaves - not the slave masters (if you'll allow me this analogy haha). I think people should just not vote on principle (to vote is to pretend like you own other people), once enough people aren't voting that the government could no longer be said to be "representative of what the people want", it wouldn't matter anymore (eg. if only 2% of the population voted, then the other 98% would realise that they were just being used). Govt would be delegitimised, people would no longer consider it "moral". The government would cease to hurt us, and not a single shot fired.

So to answer your question, I think if we continue to vote, then we're never going to realise what the actual problem is.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Doctor President Pon Raul

Haha I briefly considered this, but then I realised that its not really gonna work like that.

The way to bring about anarcho-capitalism is to change the mentality of the slaves - not the slave masters (if you'll allow me this analogy haha). I think people should just not vote on principle (to vote is to pretend like you own other people), once enough people aren't voting that the government could no longer be said to be "representative of what the people want", it wouldn't matter anymore (eg. if only 2% of the population voted, then the other 98% would realise that they were just being used). Govt would be delegitimised, people would no longer consider it "moral". The government would cease to hurt us, and not a single shot fired.

So to answer your question, I think if we continue to vote, then we're never going to realise what the actual problem is.

Except that there's no overriding personal benefit in being in the first 1 or even 10% to cease voting. Far better that you create a political party with the stated aim to demolish government, which can double as an educational tool about your ideology.

 

[volition]

Re: Doctor President Pon Raul

Except that there's no overriding personal benefit in being in the first 1 or even 10% to cease voting. Far better that you create a political party with the stated aim to demolish government, which can double as an educational tool about your ideology.

Yes there is, the personal benefit is called integrity
Edit: I know this ^^ looks sorta weird and weak, but not everything is an economic consideration. People have kids, and theres no way kids are 'economically efficient'. They do it cos they want kids. People even send their kids to war and so on "because they think its moral". So there is value to the idea of being consistent with your own principles (self-ownership), and refusing to vote, at least in a personal sense.

As for starting a political party... maybe if its main purpose was to just be an educational tool and not to seriously run for government. Any attempt to run for government seriously will just fail, for many reasons I think. eg. you often have to end up compromising on things, just like the libertarian party in the USA. You run the risk of just trying to claim "oh look i managed to slow down the growth of leviathan" while the government just continues to grow faster and faster. It'd be much better to actively take steps to change the way the public think.

Political libertarianism won't really work as much as just talking to people will.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Doctor President Pon Raul

Yes there is, the personal benefit is called integrity
Edit: I know this ^^ looks sorta weird and weak, but not everything is an economic consideration. People have kids, and theres no way kids are 'economically efficient'. They do it cos they want kids. People even send their kids to war and so on "because they think its moral". So there is value to the idea of being consistent with your own principles (self-ownership), and refusing to vote, at least in a personal sense.

As for starting a political party... maybe if its main purpose was to just be an educational tool and not to seriously run for government. Any attempt to run for government seriously will just fail, for many reasons I think. eg. you often have to end up compromising on things, just like the libertarian party in the USA. You run the risk of just trying to claim "oh look i managed to slow down the growth of leviathan", rather than actively taking steps to change the way the public think.

Political libertarianism won't really work as much as just talking to people will.

1. Integrity would generally be overridden by the calling of small government parties telling those who would be non-voters that the inaction could lead to bigger government.
2. You wouldn't have to make compromises, you could either (a) refuse to make deals with the larger parties for the passage of legislation which increases the size of government in any way, shape or form, or (b) abstain from all bills until such time as you had a majority. The overall aim being to have a referendum on the winding down of government. So long as those within the party remained principled about anarchism they'd not fall into the 'trap' of trying to minimise government instead of removing it.
3. This way you can have 51% of people approve of anarchocapitalism to bring such a system into place, rather than needing 98% (because as we know, even though ~40% of people vote in America, the system is still recognised by most of them).

 

[volition]

Re: Doctor President Pon Raul

1. Dude, not voting is not 'inaction', not voting is actually realising what the real problem is: You don't solve the problem of government, VIA government.

Another thing, are you seriously going to stand there and tell me that small-govt libertarians have experienced any kind of meaningful success in decreasing govt? In all your time campaigning for the libs and so on, has your political party actually managed to make government smaller? This has been tried for ages and ages, and look where its got the USA. On home soil, we have more pages of regulation being churned out every decade. The budget and staff of the three major regulatory bodies - ACCC, ASIC and APRA - have nearly doubled over the last ten years.

Do you think that "oh we just need the right people in governance"? Do you think that Ron Paul will be that ONE MAN who can do it for you guys? I really doubt that he'll be both willing/able to actually decrease government. First of all, he's not going to get voted in, secondly I think he'll experience massive setbacks actually trying to get stuff done.

People don't want to have their nice subsidies/staff capture/favourable legislation taken away from them. They'll get angry if they don't get it now that they've grown dependent on it.

2. ok, theoretically yes if everyone remained principled, but how likely is that? eg. Milton Friedman was a massive sellout. (not sure if he was anarchist, but he was supposed to be a free market guy, too bad he only strengthened govt control of money and suggested to deduct income tax from the source rather than collect it from ppl)

Anyway, it'd be much easier to just convince people to "disconnect" from the government (see below)

3. 98% was just an example, in fact I think if you had 51% of the people actually going the whole way and just disconnecting from the government, that would pretty much do it. Cos then it'd be like the taxes of the 49% being used to try and control the other half of the population, it just wouldn't work. The costs for the government to control this many people would just shoot up and it wouldn't be sustainable anymore. The reason its cheap to control people now is because they think its moral and legit, they do it willingly atm. If that many of them didn't submit, theres no way the government could make them.

So yeah, not just like USA where 40% vote (and presumably the other 60% just willingly submit to govt ownership of them), I'm talking about if that non-voting 60% of them just all quit their govt jobs at once or something along these lines.


tl dr version for lazy people: Do you believe everybody has the right to self-ownership? Then you shouldn't vote.

 

[Enteebee]

Re: Doctor President Pon Raul

failed, like ron paul will fail in his bid for high chancellor.

huckaBOOM

 

[jb_nc]

Re: Doctor President Pon Raul

I was watching that debate and RON PAUL actually seemed pretty crazy (and stupid).

I caught like the last 10 minutes and he somehow mentioned gold like 5 times.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

I prefer edwards, if I was in america I'd probably have voted for him.
Obama's black.

The hell does this have to with anything.

Edwards won that debate though, but from the way he was pandering to Obama it looks like a Obama/Edwards ticket with the latter as Vice President.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

i done want no negro as my president

 

[Slidey]

Re: Doctor President Pon Raul

Haha I briefly considered this, but then I realised that its not really gonna work like that.

The way to bring about anarcho-capitalism is to change the mentality of the slaves - not the slave masters (if you'll allow me this analogy haha). I think people should just not vote on principle (to vote is to pretend like you own other people), once enough people aren't voting that the government could no longer be said to be "representative of what the people want", it wouldn't matter anymore (eg. if only 2% of the population voted, then the other 98% would realise that they were just being used). Govt would be delegitimised, people would no longer consider it "moral". The government would cease to hurt us, and not a single shot fired.

So to answer your question, I think if we continue to vote, then we're never going to realise what the actual problem is.

Wow, I just realised how deluded you are.

 

[ari89]

Re: Doctor President Pon Raul

Wow, I just realised how deluded you are.

lol

 

[Tim the Wiz]

i done want no negro as my president

Is this a joke?

I believe Obama is arrogrant

At least this man has a valid reason for his dislike of Obama.

 

[Muz4PM]

Maybe one who is more avowed with the American political process could inform me about what happens to all of the money the candidates raise when they pull out of the race? Does it all eventually get pooled behind the nominated Presidential/Vice Presidential candidates election?

Also, what happens with the deligates who are elected. For example, say it comes down to McCain and Romney, would the Huckabee delegates be free to chose who they want, or would they be compelled to follow whoever Huckabee supports?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Is this a joke?

No, I'll give you a joke

"negro civil rights"

 

[Numero Uno]

Obama is going to be the next president
Ron paul is a wanker , Romney is a faggot mormon

Democrats FTW!

 

[Tim the Wiz]

No, I'll give you a joke

"negro civil rights"

Yes, us black people don't deserve our civil rights, how hillarious! I guess Liverpool fans have to take their anger out somewhere.

Anyway, latest polls (for NH):

Looks like Obama has the Democrat vote. Hillary is looking pretty distant at present. A tight race between McCain and Romney for the Republican vote. Ron Paul is nowhere near the front-runners. It appears that, unlike Huckabee, he'll be unable to come back with further overwhelming support down the road.

At this point, the Republican base seems fragmented and weak in comparison to the Democrat ticket. Obama is the strongest candidate for President thus far. But things can change, you could have said that about Hillary last year.

 

[jb_nc]

This thread is about Ron Paul, Austrian economics and/or conspiracy theories.

Stop taking this off topic.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

This thread is about Ron Paul, Austrian economics and/or conspiracy theories.

Stop taking this off topic.

Very well.

Austrian economists might think their school of thought distinctive, but I beg to differ. It gets bogged down in producing meta-economics and few results of actual substance - although it should be noted that their contributions here are considerable. In fact, when contrasting their progress with that of neoclassical economics --

Wait a second, that wasn't a joke was it?

 

[jb_nc]

itt we meta-ironically endorse ron paul for president to the point where ronpaulitics blurs with truth

 

[what971]

This world needs Mike Huckabee.

Faith, Family, Freedom = Mike Huckabee.

What I agree with Ron Paul is that government MUST be reduced. Universal Health Care bankrupts all governments, the National Debt and Social Security crisis faced by ALL Western Nations HAS to be fixed with reduced government and free market economic policies. SOCIALISM AND TAX & SPEND DEMOCRATS ARE NOT THE ANSWER.

Every person should be allowed to benefit from the fruits of their labour, and the sweat of their brow without government taxing them to death.

Also Barack HUSSEIN OSAMA is a Black Commie Muslim.

Someone needs to assassinate HUSSEIN OSAMA ASAP.